Friday, February 20, 2009

'Ron Paul Told Us So' - The Economic Crisis


"Our spending habits, in combination with our flawed monetary system, if not changed will
bring us a financial whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a minor storm."
- Dr. Ron Paul, November 14 2005 in the House of Representatives

This page consists of excerpts from a selection of Ron Paul's speeches and columns on economic matters, and a few highlights are bolded below. Throughout his time in Congress (1976-1977, 1979-1985, 1996-present), Dr. Paul tirelessly forewarned of the dire consequences of the Federal Reserve system, fiat currency, deficit spending, corporate statism, and central planning -- consequences that are now besetting the American people.

Dr. Paul primarily attributes the prescience of his work to the scholarship of the 'Austrian School', and he humbly insists that he's 'just the messenger.' While his acknowledgment of intellectual influences is certainly commendable, Dr. Paul himself deserves great credit for his patient, persistent, and often thankless efforts to inform others over the years. This page is intended as a testament to his farsightedness and perseverance, and as a convenient resource for anyone working on projects to advance the cause of liberty and the 'Ron Paul Revolution.'

Thank you, Dr. Paul -- those familiar with your work will never forget.

"[O]ur central bankers and our politicians express no fear that the course on
which we are set is fraught with great danger to our economy and our political system ...
[O]ur addiction to deficit spending, debt, and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy."
- Dr. Ron Paul, April 25 2006 in the House of Representatives

2008
The Austrians Were Right, November 20 2008
The Austrian School and the Meltdown, September 26 2008
The Crisis is Upon Us, July 19 2008

2007
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility in Government, December 18 2007
What the Fed Has Done to Us, September 20 2007
High-Risk Credit, August 21 2007
Arguments Against the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, July 30 2007
Opening Statement to Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing, May 22 2007
Executive Compensation, April 18 2007
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown, March 6 2007
Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, February 15 2007

2006
What Congress Can Do About Soaring Gas Prices, May 2 2006
What the Price of Gold is Telling Us, April 25 2006
The Perils of Economic Ignorance, March 27 2006
The End of Dollar Hegemony, February 15 2006

2005
The GSE Crisis - Reforming the Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), October 27 2005
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane, September 15 2005
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas, July 20 2005
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts, May 4 2005

2004
Government Spending - A Tax on the Middle Class, July 8 2004

2003
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market, September 10 2003
Paper Money and Tyranny, September 5 2003
The False Tax Cut Debate, May 6 2003

2002
Has Capitalism Failed? July 9 2002
Economic Concerns, February 7 2002
The Collapse of Enron, February 4 2002

2001
The Foolishness of Fiat, October 31 2001
The US Dollar and the World Economy, September 6 2001
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty, April 2 2001
Challenge to America: A Current Assessment of Our Republic, February 7 2001

2000
Economic Update, December 4 2000
Economic Problems Ahead, November 13 2000
Warning about Foreign Policy and Monetary Policy, October 12 2000
Congress Ignores its Constitutional Responsibility Regarding Monetary Policy, October 11 2000
The Dollar and Our Current Account Deficit, May 16 2000

1998
International Economic Turmoil, September 15 1998
The Bubble, April 28 1998

1997
Conduct of Monetary Policy, July 22 1997
Federal Reserve has Monopoly over Money and Credit in the United States, April 28 1997
Our Soaring Trade Deficit Cannot Be Ignored, April 9 1997

1984
Current Political Philosophies' Errors to Result in Political and Economic Crisis, September 20 1984

1980
Gold versus Paper, July 1, 1980

1979
Debasement, December 12 1979
The Chrysler Bailout, November 21 1979
Inflation is Caused by Government, November 16 1979


2008

The Austrians Were Right, Dr. Ron Paul, November 8 2008
"Except for a rare few, Members of Congress are unaware of Austrian Free Market economics. For the last 80 years, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of our government have been totally influenced by Keynesian economics. If they had had any understanding of the Austrian economic explanation of the business cycle, they would have never permitted the dangerous bubbles that always lead to painful corrections."

"Today, a major economic crisis is unfolding. New government programs are started daily, and future plans are being made for even more. All are based on the belief that we’re in this mess because free-market capitalism and sound money failed. The obsession is with more spending, bailouts of bad investments, more debt, and further dollar debasement. Many are saying we need an international answer to our problems with the establishment of a world central bank and a single fiat reserve currency. These suggestions are merely more of the same policies that created our mess and are doomed to fail."

"Who’s being ignored? The Austrian free-market economists – the very ones who predicted not only the Great Depression, but the calamity we’re dealing with today. If the crisis was predictable and is explainable, why did no one listen? It’s because too many politicians believed that a free lunch was possible and a new economic paradigm had arrived. But we’ve heard that one before – like the philosopher’s stone that could turn lead into gold. Prosperity without work is a dream of the ages."

"The basic problem is that proponents of big government require a central bank in order to surreptitiously pay bills without direct taxation. Printing needed money delays the payment. Raising taxes would reveal the true cost of big government, and the people would revolt. But the piper will be paid, and that’s what this crisis is all about."
The Austrian School and the Meltdown, Dr. Ron Paul, September 26 2008
"The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived. We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy – all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment – and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets."

"Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over – not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades."

"We are told that 'low interest rates' led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve."

"Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: 'Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.' Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the 'many' who 'believed they were guaranteed by the federal government' were in fact correct?"

"The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity. Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?"
The Crisis is Upon Us, Dr. Ron Paul, July 19 2008
"I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America. The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days – growing more frequent all the time – when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed."

"[T]he wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.

I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and things may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than any the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers ... We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble."
2007
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility in Government, Dr. Ron Paul, December 18 2007
"We are at a crucial point in history right now. We must think very carefully about our next moves. There is coming a time, if we continue on this path, when all that our tax dollars and government revenues will be able to do is pay interest on the mountain of debt we have compiled in the past few decades. That will mean no government programs or services of any kind will be funded, yet future generations of Americans will still struggle under a crushing tax burden with nothing to show for it. That is why fiscal restraint and common sense with the budget are so vitally important in government."

"The truth is, our enemies won't need a nuclear weapon to harm us if we keep spending phantom dollars at the current rate. In fact, they won't need to do anything but sit back and watch as we spend ourselves into oblivion. Historically, empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the direction we are headed. We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late."
What the Fed Has Done to Us - Mortgage Industry Has Its Roots in the Federal Reserve's Inflationary Monetary Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, September 20 2007
"Reduction in the interest rate has two major effects: it encourages consumption over saving; and it makes long-term, capital-intensive projects cheaper to undertake. Under Chairman Greenspan's tenure, the federal funds rate was so low that the real interest rate (that is the nominal interest rate minus inflation) was negative. With a negative real interest rate, someone who saves money will literally lose the value of that money."

"Further regulation of the banking sector, of mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, or credit-rating agencies will fail to improve the current situation, and will do nothing to prevent future real estate bubbles. Any proposed solutions which fail to take into account the economic intervention that laid the ground for the bubble are merely window dressing, and will not ease the suffering of millions of American homeowners. I urge my colleagues to strike at the root of the problem and address the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy."
High-Risk Credit, Dr. Ron Paul, August 21 2007
"As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage-backed securities have been reduced to 'junk' ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, 'if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!' This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.

More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation."

"We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.

As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems."
Arguments Against the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, Dr. Ron Paul, July 30 2007
"I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders or change their policies by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So sanctions mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture."

"We must keep in mind that Iran has still not been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, much of the information regarding Iran's nuclear program is coming to us via thoroughly discredited sources like the MeK, a fanatical cult that is on our State Department's terror list. Additionally, the same discredited neo-conservatives who pushed us into the Iraq war are making similarly exaggerated claims against Iran. How often do these 'experts' have to be proven wrong before we start to question their credibility?"
Opening Statement to Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing, Dr. Ron Paul, May 22 2007
"Established and managed by a multitude of national governments, the World Bank promotes managed trade, by which politically connected individuals and corporations enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class. Western governments tax their citizens to fund the World Bank, lend this money to corrupt Third World dictators who abscond with the funds, and then demand repayment which is extracted through taxation from poor Third World citizens, rather than from the government officials responsible for the embezzlement. It is in essence a global transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Taxpayers around the world are forced to subsidize the lavish lifestyles of Third World dictators and highly-paid World Bank bureaucrats who don’t even pay income tax."
Executive Compensation, Dr. Ron Paul, April 18 2007
"Explosions in CEO salaries can be a sign of a federal credit bubble, which occurs when Federal Reserve Board-created credit flows into certain sectors such as the stock market or the housing market. Far from being a sign of the health of capitalism, excessive CEO salaries in these areas often signal that a bubble is about to burst. When a bubble bursts, people at the bottom of the economic ladder bear the brunt of the bust."
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown, Dr. Ron Paul, March 6 2007
"When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed – it’s too late."

"The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names."

"The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars – a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000."
Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, Dr. Ron Paul, February 15 2007
"Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.

But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil."

"Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored."

"We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interests rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads."

"Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas."

"How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?"
2006

What Congress Can Do About Soaring Gas Prices, Dr. Ron Paul, May 2 2006
"We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy—in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means."
What the Price of Gold is Telling Us, Dr. Ron Paul, April 25 2006
"The point is that most who buy gold do so to protect against a depreciating currency rather than as an investment in the classical sense. Americans understand this less than citizens of other countries; some nations have suffered from severe monetary inflation that literally led to the destruction of their national currency. Though our inflation-- i.e. the depreciation of the U.S. dollar-- has been insidious, average Americans are unaware of how this occurs. For instance, few Americans know nor seem concerned that the 1913 pre-Federal Reserve dollar is now worth only four cents. Officially, our central bankers and our politicians express no fear that the course on which we are set is fraught with great danger to our economy and our political system. The belief that money created out of thin air can work economic miracles, if only properly 'managed,' is pervasive in D.C."

"The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock markets bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run their course and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful."

"The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing, and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn’t quit he’ll die; yet he can’t quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency. The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt, and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy."

"Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class, or war contracts for the military industrial corporations, all agree on the so-called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money. Bankers, who benefit from our fractional reserve system, likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it’s the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. And it’s true, special interests and bankers do benefit from the Fed, and may well get bailed out -- just as we saw with the Long-Term Capital Management fund crisis a few years ago. In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to financial system, cannot be known for sure -- but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon."

"Foreign policy plays a significant role in the economy and the value of the dollar. A foreign policy of militarism and empire building cannot be supported through direct taxation. The American people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay immediately for overseas wars, under the discipline of a gold standard. Borrowing and creating new money is much more politically palatable. It hides and delays the real costs of war, and the people are lulled into complacency-- especially since the wars we fight are couched in terms of patriotism, spreading the ideas of freedom, and stamping out terrorism. Unnecessary wars and fiat currencies go hand-in-hand, while a gold standard encourages a sensible foreign policy.

The cost of war is enormously detrimental; it significantly contributes to the economic instability of the nation by boosting spending, deficits, and inflation. Funds used for war are funds that could have remained in the productive economy to raise the standard of living of Americans now unemployed, underemployed, or barely living on the margin."

"Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments becomes prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes, in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins."

"At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs, or foreign rulers provides an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government, rather than protect the privacy of citizens. Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today, with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights."

"Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling. Just as empires are self-limiting in terms of money and manpower, so too is a monetary system based on illusion and fraud. When the end comes, we will be given an opportunity to choose once again between honest money and liberty on one hand; chaos, poverty, and authoritarianism on the other."
The Perils of Economic Ignorance, Dr. Ron Paul, March 27 2006
"Last week in this column I wrote of a perfect economic storm facing America, caused by a federal government that spends, borrows, and prints so much money that our dollars are eroding in value at an alarming rate. Year after year, our federal government spends beyond its revenues, prints new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. With too many dollars and debt instruments in circulation, and no political will in Washington to cut spending, we've created a monster. Our perceived prosperity depends on keeping the great debt and credit engine pumping, but the only way to attract new lenders to fuel the engine is higher interest rates. At some point one of two things must happen: either the party in Washington ends, or the supremacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency ends. It's a sobering thought, but a choice must be made."

"How did this happen? How did we get to such a state? The answer is found in the nature of politics itself. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today."

"I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frederic Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.

If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril."
The End of Dollar Hegemony, Dr. Ron Paul, February 15 2006
"In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail."

"Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been. In November 2000, Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein -- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us ... And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros."

"Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros."
2005

The GSE Crisis - Reforming the Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), Dr. Ron Paul, October 27 2005
"One of the major privileges the federal government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. This implicit promise by the government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. This is why I am offering an amendment to cut off this line of credit.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSEs’ management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the federal government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments."

"[O]ne of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that the market is superior at discovering and punishing fraud and other misbehavior than are government regulators. After all, the market discovered, and began to punish, the accounting irregularities of Enron before the government regulators did."

"Regulatory capture occurs when regulators serve the interests of the businesses they are supposed to be regulating instead of the public interest. While H.R. 1427 does have some provisions that claim to minimize the risk of regulatory capture, regulatory capture is always a threat where regulators have significant control over the operations of an industry. After all, the industry obviously has a greater incentive than any other stakeholder to influence the behavior of the regulator.

The flip side of regulatory capture is that managers and owners of highly subsidized and regulated industries are more concerned with pleasing the regulators than with pleasing consumers or investors, since the industries know that investors will believe all is well if the regulator is happy. Thus, the regulator and the regulated industry may form a symbiosis where each looks out for the other’s interests while ignoring the concerns of investors."

"Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a "world-class" regulator is ensuring the GSEs' soundness, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

"Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts."

"Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market."
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane, Dr. Ron Paul, September 15 2005
"We face a coming financial crisis. Our current account deficit is more than $600 billion annually. Our foreign debt is more than $3 trillion. Foreigners now own over $1.4 trillion of our Treasury and mortgage debt. We must borrow $3 billion from foreigners every business day to maintain our extravagant spending. Our national debt now is increasing $600 billion per year, and guess what, we print over $600 billion per year to keep the charade going. But there is a limit and I’m fearful we’re fast approaching it."

"The Federal Reserve must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially lowering interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows government and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining incentives to save. This in turn undermines capital investment while exaggerating consumption. If this policy doesn’t change, the dollar must fall and the current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards collapses."

"Our spending habits, in combination with our flawed monetary system, if not changed will bring us a financial whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a minor storm ... If Congress does not show some sense of financial restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle class to become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more authoritarian -- while the liberty of the people is diminished. The illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and warfare states serves the people must come to an end."
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas, Dr. Ron Paul, July 20 2005
"The trillions of dollars we have shipped overseas as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much to show for it, however."

"This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which as I have written before has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded 'people’s revolutions' overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt to guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are losers in the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we think this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment for Democracy should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization."

"Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful day for the US Congress. We are taking billions out of the pockets of Americans and sending the money overseas in violation of the Constitution. These are billions that will not be available for investment inside the United States: investment in infrastructure, roads, new businesses, education. These are billions that will not be available to American families, to take care of their children or senior relatives, or to give to their churches or favorite charities. We must not continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow. We are going broke, and bills like this are like a lead foot on the accelerator toward bankruptcy."
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts, Dr. Ron Paul, May 4 2005
"In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress likely will transfer funds from general revenues into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which would make all taxpayers liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would require separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress saying no to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out their weaker competitors?"

"[R]egulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking facilities. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators' records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss.

Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress inevitably blame it on regulators who were 'asleep at the switch.' Yet most politicians continue to believe that giving more power to the very regulators whose incompetence (or worse) either caused or contributed to the problem somehow will prevent future crises!"
2004

Government Spending - A Tax on the Middle Class, Dr. Ron Paul, July 8 2004
"[P]rinting money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real – the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a 'tax.'"

"Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich. This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse."

"There’s no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy."

"Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone. In fact it is the most sinister seductive 'tax' of them all. Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end. It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.

The 'tax' is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy. Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating. The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government – as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on. This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the goodies. But surprise – it doesn’t happen. The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and other necessities. The freebies never come."

"Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.

The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.

This is no small matter. In just the first 24 weeks of this year the M3 money supply increased 428 billion dollars, and 700 billion dollars in the past year. M3 currently is rising at a rate of 10.5%. In the last seven years the money supply has increased 80%, as M3 has soared 4.1 trillion dollars. This bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious international imbalances to develop. We owe just four Asian countries 1.5 trillion dollars as a consequence of a chronic and staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5% of our GDP. This current account deficit means Americans must borrow 1.6 billion dollars per day from overseas just to finance this deficit. This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond our means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard of living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation. Rest assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this process.

The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer."
2003

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market, Dr. Ron Paul, September 10 2003
"One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt."

"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

"[S]pecial privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market."
Paper Money and Tyranny, Dr. Ron Paul, September 5 2003
"A fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight. This system of legalized plunder (though not constitutional) allows one group to benefit at the expense of another. An actual transfer of wealth goes from the poor and the middle class to those in privileged financial positions."

"Fiat money is also immoral because it allows government to finance special interest legislation that otherwise would have to be paid for by direct taxation or by productive enterprise. This transfer of wealth occurs without directly taking the money out of someone’s pocket. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest, with their dollars being depreciated in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The easy credit helps investors and consumers who have no qualms about going into debt and even declaring bankruptcy."

"Artificially low interest rates deceive investors into believing that rates are low because savings are high and represent funds not spent on consumption. When the Fed creates bank deposits out of thin air making loans available at below-market rates, mal-investment and overcapacity results, setting the stage for the next recession or depression. The easy credit policy is welcomed by many: stock-market investors, home builders, home buyers, congressional spendthrifts, bankers, and many other consumers who enjoy borrowing at low rates and not worrying about repayment. However, perpetual good times cannot come from a printing press or easy credit created by a Federal Reserve computer. The piper will demand payment, and the downturn in the business cycle will see to it. The downturn is locked into place by the artificial boom that everyone enjoys, despite the dreams that we have ushered in a “new economic era.” Let there be no doubt: the business cycle, the stagflation, the recessions, the depressions, and the inflations are not a result of capitalism and sound money, but rather are a direct result of paper money and a central bank that is incapable of managing it."

"Ironically, the more successful the money managers are at restoring growth or prolonging the boom with their monetary machinations, the greater are the distortions and imbalances in the economy. This means that when corrections are eventually forced upon us, they are much more painful and more people suffer with the correction lasting longer."

"A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested."

"Liberals foolishly believe that they can control the process and curtail the benefits going to corporations and banks by increasing the spending for welfare for the poor. But this never happens. Powerful financial special interests control the government spending process and throw only crumbs to the poor. The fallacy with this approach is that the advocates fail to see the harm done to the poor, with cost of living increases and job losses that are a natural consequence of monetary debasement. Therefore, even more liberal control over the spending process can never compensate for the great harm done to the economy and the poor by the Federal Reserve’s effort to manage an unmanageable fiat monetary system."

"Our current economic problems are directly related to the monetary excesses of three decades and the more recent efforts by the Federal Reserve to thwart the correction that the market is forcing upon us."

"We are now faced with an economy that is far from robust and may get a lot worse before rebounding. If not now, the time will soon come when the conventional wisdom of the last 90 years, since the Fed was created, will have to be challenged. If the conditions have changed and the routine of fiscal and monetary stimulation don’t work, we better prepare ourselves for the aftermath of a failed dollar system, which will not be limited to the United States."

"It’s now admitted that the deficit is out of control, with next year’s deficit reaching over one-half trillion dollars, not counting the billions borrowed from “trust funds” like Social Security. I’m sticking to my prediction that within a few years the national debt will increase over $1 trillion in one fiscal year. So far, so good, no big market reactions, the dollar is holding its own and the administration and congressional leaders are not alarmed. But they ought to be.

I agree, it would be politically tough to bite the bullet and deal with our extravagance, both fiscal and monetary, but the repercussions here at home from a loss of confidence in the dollar throughout the world will not be a pretty sight to behold. I don’t see any way we are going to avoid the crisis."
The False Tax Cut Debate, Dr. Ron Paul, May 6 2003
"The process by which the Fed monetizes debt and accommodates Congress contributes to, if not causes, most of our problems. This process of government financing:

1. Generates the “business” cycle and thus increases unemployment;

2. Destroys the value of the dollar and thus causes price inflation;

3. Encourages deficits by reducing restraints on congressional spending;

4. Encourages an increase in the current account deficit (the dollar being the reserve currency) and causes huge foreign indebtedness;

5. Reflects a philosophy of instant gratification that says, 'Live for the pleasures of today and have future generations pay the bills.'"
2002

Has Capitalism Failed? Dr. Ron Paul, July 9 2002
"So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can't possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone."

"More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system."
Economic Concerns, Dr. Ron Paul, February 7 2002
"The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they are growing, it is a benefit to all, but in a contraction, globalism based on fiat money and international government assures that most economies will be dragged down together."

'Today, a party- tomorrow an economic hangover' has essentially been our philosophy for decades. But there's always a limit to deficit spending, whether it's private or governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in one form or another later on."

"Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron stocks were brought back to earth with a shattering correction. There's a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial sector."

"Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve, creating massive amounts of new credit. This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed sharply upward."

"For over a year, the Fed has been massively inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done much good. This continuous influx of new credit instead delays the correction that must eventually come - the liquidation of bad debt, and the reduction of overcapacity. ... Welfarism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options."

"[W]e operate with a system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a growing number of people, while rewarding special interests and steadily undermining the principles of liberty. Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages."

"[T]he record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates several new problems in addition while prompting even more government intervention. Here in the United States we have seen the process at work for several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction in our personal freedoms. This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems requiring even more of our attention and funding."

"Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfarism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It's happened many times already, and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again."

"Every recession in the last 30 years, since the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, debt and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each cycle, the government got bigger and more intrusive."

"An economy that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case. Owners of the dot-com companies or Enron stocks know what it's like to feel rich one day and very poor the next. This is not a unique experience but one that should be expected and is predictable."

Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust their values periodically with sudden devaluations, which destroy the pseudo-wealth of the middle class and poor. The wealthy, more often than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary system. However, they can't protect from the insidious loss of liberty that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers."

"It's possible this recession may end in a few months as the optimists predict, but if it does, our problems are only delayed. The fundamental correction will still be necessary to preserve the productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our ways, the financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The big correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing with rapid disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. The longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the threat to our freedoms and institutions. Since we're moving toward the big correction, we're going to see a lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds like Social Security and mean a lower standard living for most people."

"Wealth - the product of labor, investment and savings- can never be substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first take away from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth; both can destroy it."

"The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it's fighting the war on terrorism, acting as the world's policeman, or solving the problems of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are what made us the richest nation in all of history, but this we will lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months."

"With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we've been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent."

"Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history, and this is a threat the Congress should not ignore."


The Collapse of Enron, Dr. Ron Paul, February 4 2002
"It is a mistake for Congress to view the Enron collapse as a justification for more government regulation. Publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosure rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything? The real problem with SEC rules is that they give investors a false sense of security, a sense that the government is protecting them from dangerous investments.

In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated economy, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.

The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve System artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluation: Fed expansion of money and credit.

The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before."

"[I]f Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security, and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron."

"Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers. The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most of my colleagues are busy devising ways to 'save' investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to D.C.-based politicians of both parties. It’s a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.

This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer."
2001

The Foolishness of Fiat, Dr. Ron Paul, October 31 2001
"Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it has helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass. Nothing can correct the problems we face if we do not give up on the foolishness of fiat. Mr. Speaker, a dollar crisis is quickly approaching. We should prepare ourselves."
The US Dollar and the World Economy, Dr. Ron Paul, September 6 2001
"Paper money helps the strong and hurts the weak before it self-destructs and undermines international trade. The US dollar, with its reserve-currency status, provides a much greater benefit to American citizens than that which occurs in other countries that follow a similar monetary policy. It allows us to export our inflation by buying cheap goods from overseas, while our dollars are then lent back to us to finance our current account deficit. We further benefit from the confidence bestowed on the dollar by our being the economic and military powerhouse of the world, thus postponing the day of reckoning. This permits our extravagant living to last longer than would have otherwise occurred under a gold standard.

Some may argue that a good deal like that shouldn't be denied, but unfortunately the piper must eventually be paid. Inevitably the distortions, such as our current account deficit and foreign debt, will come to an end with more suffering than anyone has anticipated."

"Fiat money has been around for a long time off and on throughout history. But never has the world been so enthralled with the world economy being artificially structured with paper money and with a total rejection of the anchor that gold provided for thousands of years. Let there be no doubt, we live in unprecedented times, and we are just beginning to reap what has been sown the past thirty years. Our government and Federal Reserve officials have grossly underestimated this danger."

"The next recession, from which I'm sure we're already suffering, will be even more pervasive worldwide than the one in the 1930s due to the artificial nature of modern globalism, with world paper money and international agencies deeply involved in the economy of every nation. We have witnessed the current and recent bailouts in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and the Far East. While resisting the market's tendency for correction, faith in government deficits and belief in paper money inflation will surely prolong the coming worldwide crisis."

"Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can't prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese 'miracle' of the 1980s going forever."

"A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE [i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury's and the Fed's attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also, a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.

The weakening dollar will usher in an age of challenge to the whole worldwide financial system. The dollar has been the linchpin of economic activity, and a severe downturn in its value will not go unnoticed and will compound the already weakening economies of the world. More monetary inflation, even if it's a concerted worldwide effort, cannot solve the approaching crisis. The coming crisis will result from fiat money and monetary inflation; therefore, more of the same cannot be the solution."

"The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.

Serious problems lie ahead. If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed."

"A realization that we cannot continue our old ways may well be upon us, and, the inflating, taxing, regulating, and centralized planning programs of the last thirty years must come to an end. Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice."
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty, Dr. Ron Paul, April 2 2001
"[T]he single greatest threat to our liberty in America is uncontrolled spending by Congress. Americans need to understand the stark reality behind the often boring and confusing budget rhetoric: Congress will spend nearly $2 trillion in 2002. This amount represents almost 11% more than Congress will spend in 2001. This massive spending funds an unbelievable number of federal departments, agencies, programs, and personnel. Most Americans understand that the federal government is far too large, yet most of their representatives in Congress continue to vote for spending increases every year. As a result, the same unconstitutional agencies grow, the same counterproductive programs are perpetuated, and the same military adventurism expands around the globe. In short, this spending insures that the federal government has more and more power over our lives, power never dreamed of nor intended by the authors of our Constitution. The more Congress spends, the less liberty we have."
Challenge to America: A Current Assessment of Our Republic, Dr. Ron Paul, February 7 2001
"As long as government has so much to offer, public officials will be tempted to accept the generous offers of support from special interests. Those who can benefit have too much at stake not to be in the business of influencing government. Eliminating the power of government to pass out favors is the only real solution."

"My concerns are threefold: the health of the economy, the potential for war, and the coming social discord. If our problems are ignored, they will further undermine the civil liberties of all Americans. The next decade will be a great challenge to all Americans."

"Boom times built on central-bank credit creation always end in recession or depression ... We must face the fact that the business cycle, with its recurring recessions, wage controls, wealth transfers, and social discord are still with us and will get worse unless there is a fundamental change in economic and monetary policy. Regardless of the type, central economic planning is a dangerous notion."

"The dollar still represents approximately 77% of all world central-bank reserves. This means that the United States has license to steal. We print the money and spend it overseas, while world trust continues because of our dominant economic and military power. This results in a current account and trade deficit so large that almost all economists agree that it cannot last. The longer and more extensive the distortions in the international market, the greater will be the crisis when the market dictates a correction. And that's what we're starting to see. When the recession hits full force, even the extraordinary power and influence of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, along with all the other central banks of the world, won't be able to stop the powerful natural economic forces that demand equilibrium."

"But the really big borrowing has been what the US as a whole has borrowed from foreigners to pay for the huge deficit we have in our current account. We are now by far the largest foreign debtor in the world and in all of history. This convenient arrangement has allowed us to live beyond our means and, according to long-understood economic laws, must end."

"During the past 30 years in the post-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sentiment has permitted us to inflate our money supply and get others to accept the dollar as if it were as good as gold. This convenient arrangement has discouraged savings, which are now at an historic low. Savings in a capitalist economy are crucial for furnishing capital and establishing market interest rates. With negative savings and with the FED fixing rates by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, we have abandoned a necessary part of free-market capitalism, without which a smooth and growing economy is sustainable. No one should be surprised when recessions hit or bewildered as to their cause or danger. The greater surprise should be the endurance of an economy fine-tuned by a manipulative central bank and a compulsively interventionist Congress. But the full payment for all past economic sins may now be required. Let's hope we can keep the pain and suffering to a minimum."

"The FED can create excess credit, but it can't control where it goes as it circulates throughout the economy; nor can it dictate value either. Claiming that a subdued government-rigged CPI and PPI proves that no inflation exists is pure nonsense. It is well established that, under certain circumstances, new credit inflation can find its way into the stock or real estate market, as it did in the 1920s, while consumer prices remain relatively stable. This does not negate the distortion inherit in a system charged with artificially low interest rates. Instead it allows the distortion to last longer and become more serious, leading to a bigger correction."

"Much else related to artificially low interest rates goes unnoticed. An overpriced stock market, overcapacity in certain industries, excesses in real-estate markets, artificially high bond prices, general mal-investments, excessive debt, and speculation all result from the generous and artificial credit the Federal Reserve pumps into the financial system. These distortions are every bit, if not more, harmful than rising prices. As the economy soars from the stimulus effect of low interest rates, growth and distortions compound themselves. In a slump, the reverse is true, and the pain and suffering is magnified as the adjustment back to reality occurs."

"The extra credit in the 1990s has found its way especially into the housing market like never before. GSEs, in particular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have gobbled up huge sums to finance a booming housing market. GSE securities enjoy implicit government guarantees, which have allowed for a generous discount on most housing loans. They have also been the vehicles used by consumers to refinance and borrow against their home equity to use these funds for other purposes, such as investing in the stock market. This has further undermined savings by using the equity that builds with price inflation that homeowners enjoy when money is debased. In addition, the Federal Reserve now buys and holds GSE securities as collateral in their monetary operations. These securities are then literally used as collateral for printing Federal Reserve notes; this is a dangerous precedent."

"Creating money out of thin air is morally equivalent to counterfeiting. It's fraud and theft, because it steals purchasing power from the savers and those on fixed incomes. That in itself should compel all nations to prohibit it, as did the authors of our Constitution."

"But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it's all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts."

"Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core."

"We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime. The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region. ... It's impossible for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides security for Western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented."

"Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law-enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend."

"If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the government: the US Constitution."

"For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem."

"Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies may work for a while, eventually they will fail. As wealth is diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with regulation, taxes, and inflation. The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before tempers flair. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign policy."

"But we have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been undermined, but only for a limited period of time. Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money, and self-reliance have been eroded, and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits, and voluntary contracts."
2000

Economic Update, Dr. Ron Paul, December 4 2000
"What we must remember though, is that every time someone pressures the Fed to lower interest rates, they are saying to the Fed that the money supply must be inflated. The only tool the Fed has for lowering interest rates is to increase the supply of money. They are arguing the case for further systematic and deliberate debasement of the US dollar. Those who chant for lower interest rates are literally attacking the dollar."

"Congress should be prepared for some surprises in the not-to-distance future. A slumping economy or definite recession will obviously lower revenues. This will reverse the illusion of the grand surpluses that everyone has been anxious to spend. Instead of expenditures being held under control, expect them to rise rapidly.

Many are starting to talk now about a legislative stalemate with no clear majority in the House or Senate and the Presidency being uncertain. This concern about a stalemate is overblown. Not that the problem isn't serious, but I am certain that under the conditions that we are about to experience, the Congress and the President will be all too willing to deal with the deteriorating conditions with increased spending and with a concerted bi-partisan effort to pressure the Federal Reserve to further inflate the currency in pursuing the fiction that the Federal Reserve can prevent a "hard landing" by merely increasing the money supply in an effort to dictate short-term Fed funds rates.

Although this will not be the impasse that many anticipate, the actual capitulation by both parties to deal with the oncoming economic slowdown will actually be more harmful than gridlock because Congress will undoubtedly do more harm than good to the economy."

"A major financial crisis is possible since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, held in central banks as if it were gold itself. The current account deficit for the United States continues to deteriorate, warning us of danger ahead. Our foreign debt of $1.7 trillion continues to grow rapidly and it will eventually have to be paid.

Action by the Congress and the Federal Reserve will most likely make the correction that is now starting much worse. Also, under conditions such as these, personal liberty is always vulnerable to the advocates of big government. It is well known that during the times of military wars personal liberties are in endangered. Social wars such as the war on drugs are notorious for undermining the principles of liberty. So too, under economic conditions that are difficult to understand and deal with, personal liberty comes under attack. This should concern us all."
Economic Problems Ahead, Dr. Ron Paul, November 13 2000
"A huge financial bubble has been created by the GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The $33 billion of shareholder equities in these two organizations has been leveraged into $1.07 trillion worth of assets - a bubble waiting to be pricked."

"Commercial debt was but $50 billion in 1994 and is now ten times higher now at $551 billion. The money supply is now growing at greater than a 10% rate and the derivatives market, although difficult to calculate, probably exceeds $75 trillion. We also have consumer debt, which is at record highs and has not yet shown signs of slowing. The Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks are now 5 times book value, the highest in over a hundred years. There will come a day when most people come to realize the fraud associated with Social Security and the inability for it to continue as currently managed. Rising oil and natural gas prices, it is argued, are not inflationary, yet they are playing havoc with the pocketbooks of most Americans. The economies of Asia, and in particular Japan, will not offer any assistance in dealing with the approaching storm in this country. Our foreign policy, which continues to obligate our support around the world, shows no signs of changing and will contribute to the crisis and possibly our bankruptcy."
Warning about Foreign Policy and Monetary Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, October 12 2000
"[I]n spite of the grand prosperity that we have had for this past decade, I believe it is an illusion in many ways, because we have not paid for it. In a true capitalist society, true wealth comes from hard work and savings. Today, the American people have a negative savings rate, which means that we get our so-called capital from a printing press, because there are no savings and no funds to invest. The Federal Reserve creates these funds to be invested. On a short-term, this seems to benefit everyone ... The only problem with this is it always ends, and it always ends badly."
Congress Ignores its Constitutional Responsibility Regarding Monetary Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, October 11 2000
"Congress has certainly reneged on its responsibility in this area. We continue to grant authority to a central bank that designs monetary policy in complete secrecy, inflating the currency at will, thus stealing value from the already existing currency through a dilution effect."

"[T]he truth is our Presidents deserve neither the credit for the good times nor the blame for the bad times. The Federal Reserve, which maintains a monopoly control over the money supply, credit and interest rates, is indeed the culprit and should be held accountable. But the real responsibility falls on the Congress, for it is Congress' neglect that permits the central bank to debase the dollar at will.

Destroying the value of a currency is immoral and remains unconstitutional. It should be illegal. And only a responsible Congress can accomplish that.

In preparation for the time when we are forced to reform the monetary system, we must immediately begin to consider the problems that befall a nation that permits systematic currency depreciation as a tool to gain short-term economic benefits while ignoring the very dangerous long-term consequences to our liberty and prosperity."
The Dollar and Our Current Account Deficit, Dr. Ron Paul, May 16 2000
"Although international trade imbalances are a predictable result of fiat money, the duration and intensity of the cycles associated with it are not. A reserve currency, such as is the dollar, is treated by the market quite differently than another fiat currency.

The issuer of a reserve currency - in this case the United States - has greater latitude for inflating and can tolerate a current account deficit for much longer periods of time than other countries not enjoying the same benefit. But economic law, although at times it may seem lax, is ruthless in always demanding that economic imbalances arising from abuse of economic principles be rectified. In spite of the benefits that reserve currency countries enjoy, financial bubbles still occur and their prolongation, for whatever reason, only means the inevitable adjustment, when it comes, is more harsh.

Our current state of imbalance includes a huge US/foreign debt of $1.5 trillion, a record 20% of GDP and is a consequence of our continuously running a huge monthly current account deficit that shows no signs of soon abating. We are now the world's greatest debtor. The consequence of this deficit cannot be avoided. Our current account deficit has continued longer than many would have expected. But not knowing how long and to what extent deficits can go is not unusual. The precise event that starts the reversal in the trade balance is also unpredictable. The reversal itself is not."
1998

International Economic Turmoil, Dr. Ron Paul, September 15 1998
"The notion being that once governments inflate, create new credit for the purpose of driving down interest rates, the low interest rates send bad signals, confusing signals, to business people, who do dumb things. They overinvest, there is overcapacity, they have malinvestment, and they tend to accumulate a lot more debt. Banks loan out more money. But this is a consequence of the central banks' error of creating too much credit. And then, again, this leads to the speculations and to the derivatives markets that you mentioned."
The Bubble, Dr. Ron Paul, April 28 1998
"Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated ... The NASDAQ is now selling at 85 times earning. There is no doubt that most stock prices are grossly inflated and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history."

"The basic cause of any financial bubble is the artificial creation of credit by a central bank (in this case our Federal Reserve). Artificially creating credit causes the currency to depreciate in value over time. It is important to understand the predictable economic problems that result from a depreciating currency:

1. In the early stages it is difficult to forecast exactly who will suffer and when.

2. Inflated currency and artificially low interest rates result in mal-investment that produces over capacity in one area or another.

3. Wealth generally transfers from the hands of the middle-class into the hands of the very wealthy. (The very poor receiving welfare gain a degree of protection, short of a total destruction of the currency.)

4. Prices indeed do go up, although which prices will go up is unpredictable, and the CPI and PPI can never be a dependable measurement of a monetary policy driven by loose credit.

5. The group that suffers the very most is the low-middle-income group (those willing to stay off welfare, yet unable to benefit from any transfer of wealth as stagnant wages fail to protect them from the ravages of the rising cost of living)."

"Even though Japan first recognized signs of difficulty nine years ago, their problems linger because they have not allowed the liquidation of debt, or the elimination of over capacity, or the adjustment for real estate prices that would occur if the market were permitted to operate free of government intervention. The U.S. did the same thing in the 1930s, and I suspect we will do exactly what Japan is doing once our problems become more pressing."

"This process of deliberately depreciating a currency over time (inflation) causes a loss in purchasing power and is especially harmful to those individuals who save. AIER (American Institute for Economic Research) calculates that 100 million households since 1945 have lost $11.2 trillion in purchasing power. This comes out to $112,000 per household, or put another way, over 5 decades each one of these households lost $2,200 every year. Although many households are feeling very wealthy today because their stock portfolios are more valuable, this can change rather rapidly in a crash. The big question is what does the future hold for the purchasing power of the dollar over the next 10 or 20 years?"

"The goal of central bankers has always been to gain `benefit' from the inflation they create, while preventing deflation and prolonging the boom as long as possible--a formidable task indeed. The more sophisticated and successful the central bankers are as technicians, the larger the bubble they create."

"Central bankers have also had the advantage of technological changes that increase productivity and also serve to keep down certain prices. It is true that we live in an information age, an age in which travel is done with ease and communication improvements are astounding. All of these events allow for a bigger bubble and a higher standard of living. Unfortunately this will not prove to be as sustainable as many hope."

"It must be understood that politicians and the pressure of the special interests in Washington demand that the current policies of spending, deficits, artificially low interest rates and easy credit will not change. It took the complete demise of the Soviet-Communist system before change came there. But be forewarned: change came with a big economic bang not a whimper."

"[I]n the midst of a deep recession, the scapegoats will be found and alien workers will always be a target. The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority."

"Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent."

"With daily pronouncements that inflation is dead, the stage is set for unlimited credit expansion whenever it becomes necessary. Just as deficit spending and massive budgets will continue, we can expect the falling value of the dollar, long term, to further undermine the economic and political stability of this country and the world. Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation."
1997

Conduct of Monetary Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, July 22 1997
"[W]hat we really need to be concerned about the correction that inevitably comes after a period of inflation."

"My question and suggestion is maybe we ought to be doing something now, because there is a lot of credit out there doing something else, causing malinvestment, causing deficits and debt to buildup, and that there will be a correction. We have not repealed the business cycle. So we have to expect something from this."
Federal Reserve has Monopoly over Money and Credit in the United States, Dr. Ron Paul, April 28 1997
"[The Federal Reserve] works in collaboration with the banking system, where not only can [it] create money and credit out of thin air and manipulate interest rates, it also works closely with the banks through the fractional reserve banking system that allows the money supply to expand. This is the source of a lot of mischief and a lot of problems, and if we in the Congress could ever get around to understanding this issue, we might be able to do something about the lowering standard of living which many Americans are now suffering from. If we are concerned about repealing the business cycle, we would have to finally understand the Federal Reserve and how they contribute to the business cycle."

"Not only is this a monopoly control over money and credit, unfortunately it is a very secret monopoly. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and I am on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, and I myself cannot attend the open market committee meetings. I have no access to what really goes on. I have no authority to do any oversight. There is no appropriation made for the Federal Reserve ... If they have the authority to manipulate interest rates, which is the cost of borrowing, which is the price as well as the supply of money, this is an ominous power because we use the money in every single transaction ... yet [Congress has] reneged on our responsibility to monitor the Fed to determine whether or not this dollar will maintain value."

"[W]e will have to someday restore the integrity of the monetary system, and we have to have more respect for the free market if we ever expect to undertake a reform of a monetary system which has given us a great deal of trouble, and it is bound to give us a lot more trouble as time goes on."

"Some argue that the Federal Reserve is private and out of our control. That is not exactly true. It is secret, but it is a creature of Congress. Congress created the Federal Reserve System and Congress has the authority to do oversight, but it refuses and has ignored the responsibility of really monitoring the value of our currency and monitoring this very, very powerful central bank."

"So, then, they go and spend the money and, lo and behold, there is not enough money to borrow and not enough tax money to go around, so they have to have one more vehicle, and that is the creation of money out of thin air, and this is what they do. They send the Treasury bills or the bonds to the Federal Reserve, and with a computer they can turn a switch and create a billion or $10 billion in a single day and that debases the currency. It diminishes the value of the money and alters interest rates and causes so much mischief that, if people are concerned about the economy, or their standard of living, or rising costs of living, this is the source of the problem. So it is not only with the Federal Reserve manipulating the money and the interest rates, but the responsibility falls on the Congress as well because the Federal Reserve serves the interests of the Congress in accommodating the Congress as we here in the Congress spend more than we should."

"As the Federal Reserve manipulates the economy by first lowering interest rates below what they should be and then raising interest rates above what they think they should be, this causes the business cycle. This is the source of the business cycle. So anybody who is concerned about unemployment and downturns in the economy and rising costs of living must eventually address the subject of monetary policy."

"[W]e in the Congress here cannot continue to ignore it and believe that we can endlessly accommodate deficits with the creation of new money. There is no doubt that it hurts the working man more so than the wealthy man. The working man who has a more difficult time adjusting to the rising cost of living is now suffering from a diminished standard of living because real wages are going down."

"But the real problem is why does the Federal Reserve have this much power over interest rates? In a free market, interest rates would be determined by savings. People would be encouraged to work, spend what they want, save the rest. If savings are high, interest rates go down, people then are encouraged to borrow and invest and build businesses. But today we have created an environment that there is no encouragement for savings, for tax reasons, and for psychological reasons, very, very little savings is occurring in this country. Our country saves less money than probably any country in the world. But that does not eliminate the access to credit. Because if the banks and the businesses need money, the Federal Reserve comes along and they crank out the credit and they lower the interest rates artificially, which then encourages business people and consumers to do things that they would not otherwise do. This is the expansion or the bubble part of the business cycle, which then sets the stage for the next recession. So people can talk about how to get out of the next recession when the next recession hits and they can talk about what caused it, but the next recession has already been scheduled. It has been scheduled by the expansion of the money supply and the spending and the borrowing and the deficits that we have accumulated here over the last six to eight years."

"But unfortunately, because we do not look at the fundamentals of what we have done, and the spending and the deficits, the next stage will be what we have done before. That is, if unemployment is going up, the government has to spend more money, there has to be more unemployment insurance. We cannot let people suffer. So the deficits will go up, revenues will go down and as we spend more money to try to bail ourselves out of the next recession, we will obviously just compound the problems because that is what we have been doing for the past 50 years. We have not solved these problems.

As a matter of fact, what has happened, because we eventually get the economy going again, what we do is we continue to build this huge financial bubble which exists today. It is a much bigger bubble than ever existed in the 1920s, it is international in scope and it is something never experienced in the history of mankind. Yet we have to face up to this, because when that time comes, we have to do the right things."

"I think [Greenspan] knows what is coming and why adjustments have to be made. But his critics are saying, when they talk about do not raise interest rates, what we have to remember is what they are saying to him is make sure there is more inflation, more money, lower interest rates and, of course, that will add to our problems in the future."

"Not only do we have Members of Congress telling the Fed what to do, and the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers telling them, many others all have an opinion on what to do, but nobody really asks the question, why are they doing all this in secret and where did they get all this power and why do we tolerate this system of money?"

"Those who want to perpetuate this system do not want us to think of the real cause, and that is, the real cause is the monetary system. They would like us to think about the symptoms and not the cause, because it is not in the interest of a lot of people, not only not in the interest of the big spenders here in the Congress who love the idea that the Federal Reserve is able to accommodate them on deficits, but there are business and banking interests and international interests and even some military production interests who like the idea that the credit is readily available and that they will be accommodated. The little guy never benefits. The little guy pays the taxes, he suffers from the inflation, he suffers from the unemployment, but there is a special group of people in an inflationary environment that benefits. Today, of course, there are a lot of people on Wall Street benefiting from this environment."

"The one thing that we do not have in the Congress and we do not have in the Federal Reserve, and the President does not have, is to guarantee the value of the money, and that is the problem. Today, all we hear about is the strength of the dollar, but if you look at the dollar from 1945 on, the dollar is on a downward spiral, and we are on a slight upward blip right now. Ultimately, the dollar will be attacked by the marketplace, and it will be more powerful than any of the policy changes that our Federal Reserve might institute."

"So in an age when you have tremendous excessive credit, money and credit, you have more speculation. Consumers speculate, they spend too much money, a businessman speculates, invests in things he probably should not, but also governments do the same thing. They spend money that they should not have. But in this area of derivatives, we have things like swaps, futures, and options, repos, and the foreign currency market. Right now there is $20, $21 trillion worth of these derivatives floating around out there outside of the measurement by our conventional money supply, which means that this participates in this huge financial bubble that exists around the world."

"[I]n all monetary systems which are based on fiat, the creation of money out of thin air, eventually comes to an end, and when it comes to an end, there is the rejection of the dollar, and then the dollars come home, interest rates will go up, inflation will be back with a vengeance, and there will come a time, and nobody knows when that time will come, it will not be because of us in the Congress being very deliberate and very wise to all of a sudden live within our means, but we will be forced to live within our means because those who want to loan the money to us and the value of the money will change, that there will just not be enough wealth."

"We need today a very serious debate on what the monetary system ought to be all about. It cannot be a debate which is isolated from the role of government. If we have a role of government which is to run the welfare state, to give anything to anybody who needs something or wants something, or claims it is an entitlement, or claims it is a right, if that is a system of government that we want to perpetuate, it is going to be very difficult to have any reform. If we continue to believe that this country is the policeman of the world, that we must police the world and build bases overseas at the same time we neglect our own national defense, our own borders, our own bases here at home, but we continue to spend money on places, on Bosnia and Africa, and pay for the defense of Japan and Europe; as long as we accept those ideas, there is no way we can restore any sanity to our budget."

"I was gone for a few years. I was here in the Congress in 1976, and, after returning, there is one dramatic difference. There are more lobbyists than ever, more demands, more people coming and more people wanting things. I have more demand from the business community than I do from those who are from the poor end of the spectrum. There is a vicious maldistribution of wealth in a society that destroys its money. Inevitably, if a country destroys its money, it destroys its middle class."

"[T]he time will come, because we will go bankrupt, because no country has ever done this before. No country can live beyond its means endlessly. No country can spend and inflate and destroy its money. There will be this transfer of wealth. It happened in many, many countries in this century ... The middle class suffers the most."
Our Soaring Trade Deficit Cannot Be Ignored, Dr. Ron Paul, April 9 1997
"I suspect in the next several years Congress will be truly challenged. The high level of frustration in this body comes from the fact that the large majority are not yet willing to give up the principles upon which the welfare state exists. Eventually, an economic crisis will force all Americans, including Congress, to face up to the serious problems that we have generated for ourselves over the past 50 years. I expect deficits to explode and not come down. I suspect the economy is much weaker than is currently claimed. In the not too distant future, we will be in a serious recession. Under these circumstances the demand for spending will override all other concerns ... Consumers and entitlement recipients will face the problem of stagflation, probably worse than we saw in the 1970s. I expect very few in Congress to see the monetary side of this problem."
1984

Current Political Philosophies' Errors to Result in Political and Economic Crisis, Dr. Ron Paul, September 20 1984
"Government is literally out of control. Spending, taxes, regulations, monetary inflation, invasion of our privacy, welfarism to both the rich and the poor, military spending, and foreign adventurism around the world will one day precipitate a crisis that will truly test our will to live in a free society."

"Without a significant change in attitude by the American people and Congress as to the purpose of government, the choices are horrible; an inflationary collapse or a deflationary one. The form and timing of the collapse is yet to be determined; the event itself is certain. This crisis will come, as others have, because we refuse to face up to reality and live within our means."
1980

Gold versus Paper, Dr. Ron Paul, July 1, 1980
"Milton Friedman claims that paper money will work, if government is just told to limit the monetary expansion to a fixed rate of 4 to 5 percent a year. This indicates little understanding about human nature. Even if we had such a law on the books, we would not be able to restrain the politicians from abusing this prerogative and arbitrarily increasing the number of dollars in circulation. Power is corrupting. Do not tempt anyone with a purchasing medium made of something artificial, without intrinsic value, and ask that a limited supply be allowed. It just will not work. If we found perfection in elected officials, possibly Friedman's monetary ideas would have merit; but, believe me, there is such a scarcity of even the 'good guys' in Washington, let alone any that are considered perfect, that it precludes any such dream."
1979

Debasement, Dr. Ron Paul, December 12 1979
"To debase the currency is to inflate it. To inflate the currency is to distend, swell, and expand the money supply, and thereby destroy its value. To destroy the currency is to undermine and attack freedom. Without a sound and honest money, a free society cannot long exist."
The Chrysler Bailout, Dr. Ron Paul, November 21 1979
"Do we in Congress have the authority, either moral or constitutional, to cause this suffering? I can find no provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make loans or loan guarantees to anyone, let alone to major corporations. Nor have I yet seen a valid moral argument concluding that we, as representatives of all the people, have the right to tax the American people – most of whom receive less in wages and benefits than Chrysler workers – to support a multibillion-dollar corporation. What right have we – and I pose a serious question that deserves an answer – what right have we to force the American taxpayers to risk their money in a business venture which private investors dealing in their own funds have judged to be too risky?"

"Last year there were 200,000 bankruptcies in this country, according to U.S. News & World Report. Yet we have selected only the largest for our aid. This is discrimination of the crassest sort. We ignore the smaller victims of this government’s policies simply because they are small. Only the largest, those with the most clout, the most pull, get our attention. This aristocracy of pull is morally indefensible. What answer can be given to the small businessman driven into bankruptcy by government regulations when he asks: "You bailed out Chrysler, why not me?" No justification can be given for this discrimination between the powerful and the powerless, the big and the small.

It is an axiom of our legal system that all citizens are to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. That axiom is violated daily by our tax laws, and now by this proposed corporate welfare plan for Chrysler. Apparently some citizens are more equal than others. That is a notion I reject, and I hope you do, too. I urge you to reject this proposal for all the reasons I have stated."
Inflation is Caused by Government, Dr. Ron Paul, November 16 1979
"Since the federal government uses inflation -- the creation of new money -- to pay its bills, we can look on it as a tax, a tax we all pay in higher prices. But inflation is an exceedingly unfair and regressive tax. Not all sectors of the economy suffer equally. In fact, some benefit, since inflation results in a transfer of wealth from savers and workers to speculators, bureaucrats, and the special interests favored by government. Inflation also breeds mistrust. Its economic effects are so destructive, because it leads -- as it has in our country -- to rising prices and unemployment. It misdirects the economy and prevents accurate assessment of future business conditions, thus contributing to bankruptcies of cities and corporations, like New York City, Cleveland, and Chrysler.

At first, inflation does 'stimulate' the economy, in the same way a dose of heroin stimulates a drug addict. It feels great for a while, but there is a price to be paid. Eventually, the economic conditions created by inflation lead to social discontent and anger, as classes, races, and regions are set against one another. Everybody grows irritable and uncertain about the future, as they find it harder and harder to make ends meet. Plans become difficult to make, and everyone directs his efforts toward day-to-day survival, rather than the long-term efforts that build an economy and a society."

"Inflation is theft. People who worked hard and saved, the retired, and others on fixed incomes, are robbed, just as surely as if an armed criminal mugged them on the street. The very people who should be rewarded for their effort in caring for themselves are the ones hurt the most."

"The Founding Fathers, after their experience with inflation during the Revolution, said that real money was gold and silver. A dollar was about 1/20th of an ounce of gold. But we have had so much inflation that today's dollar -- which is only a piece of paper backed by nothing -- is worth less than 1/400th of an ounce of gold. To end inflation, we need to stop deficit spending and have a dollar that is tied to a specific commodity, like gold or silver ... Let us pull the plug on the printing presses, stop the destruction of our money and our country through inflation, and encourage the healthy economic growth we need."
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Friday, February 20, 2009

'Ron Paul Told Us So' - Prior to the invasion of Iraq


"Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into
a war without merit - one fraught with the danger of escalating into
something no American will be pleased with."
- Dr. Ron Paul, September 4 2002 in the House of Representatives

On October 10 & 11, 2002, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iraq War Resolution which authorized "the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Six months later, the US invaded Iraq, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Prior to the invasion, most American politicians and media uncritically echoed the Bush administration's casus belli -- most notably, that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), posed an imminent threat to the US, and was complicit in the attacks of 9/11. However, a few intrepid souls challenged these assertions throughout the march to war. In a hostile environment rife with militant hysteria, these people patiently exposed the flaws and falsehoods in the government's propaganda.

Adding his voice to this small chorus of dissenters, Ron Paul delivered a remarkable series of addresses in the House of Representatives. At a time when it was politically unpopular to do so, Dr. Paul persistently refuted the administration's case for war, while also warning his countrymen of the potentially dire consequences. Below, you will find excerpts from these speeches, with a few select quotations in bold.

"One hundred years of intense government 'benevolence'
in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse,
a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas.And now our obsession
with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one
can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible."
- Dr. Ron Paul, November 14 2002 in the House of Representatives

2001
Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq, December 19 2001

2002
Before We Bomb Iraq..., February 26 2002
Why Initiate War with Iraq? March 20 2002
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24 2002
Arguments Against a War in Iraq, September 4 2002
Questions that Won't be Asked about Iraq, September 10 2002
Can We Afford this War? September 24 2002
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3 2002
Statement Opposing the Use of Military Force in Iraq, October 8 2002
Unintended Consequences, November 14 2002

2003
Another United Nations War? February 26 2003
The Myth of War Prosperity, March 4 2003


2001

Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul, December 19 2001
"Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East, many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place."

"Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64 ... states that, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.' From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role."

"The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some twenty years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran."

"We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism ... Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq."

"Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States?"

"[T]his legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time ... Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles."


2002

Before We Bomb Iraq ..., Dr. Ron Paul, February 26 2002
"[I]t is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children."

"The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us."

"We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable."



Why Initiate War on Iraq? Dr. Ron Paul, March 20 2002
"Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security."

"[A] war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative."

"[I]nitiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world... There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran."

"[T]he cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored."



Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? Dr. Ron Paul, June 24 2002
"[Former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter] added that any U.S. invasion to remove Saddam from power would likely open the door to an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. That can hardly be viewed in a positive light here in the United States. Is a policy that replaces a bad regime with a worse regime the wisest course to follow?"

"Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve."


Arguments Against a War in Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul, September 4 2002
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit - one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with."

"We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons."

"If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home."

"There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications."

"There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. 'War is the health of the state,' as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime 'emergencies' and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom."



Questions that Won't be Asked about Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul, September 10 2002
"Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate - which just confirms that there is no real threat?"

"Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year?"

"Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?"

"Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?"

"Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?"

"Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to 'build democracy' there?"

"How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?"

"Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 - including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?"

"Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?"

"Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?"



Can We Afford this War? Dr. Ron Paul, September 24 2002
"Government spending in all areas is skyrocketing, much of it out of the control of the politicians, who show little concern. Yet we are expected to believe our government leaders who say that we are experiencing a recovery and that a return to grand prosperity is just around the corner. The absence of capital formation, savings, and corporate profits are totally ignored."

"No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism."

"Our national debt is over $6 trillion and is increasing by nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Since Social Security funds are all placed in the general revenues and spent, and all funds are fungible, honest accounting, of which there has been a shortage lately, dictates that a $200 billion war must jeopardize Social Security funding. This is something the American people deserve to know."

"Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits."

"Rest assured, a $200 billion hit on the economy will have economic consequences, and the elderly retirees on fixed incomes, and especially Social Security beneficiaries, will suffer the greatest burden of [this] policy, reflecting a belief that our country is so rich that it can afford both guns and butter. Remember, we have tried that before."

"The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world's policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security."



Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? Dr. Ron Paul, October 3 2002
"The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution."

"A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress."

"Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities."

"The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur - what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown ... The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment."



Statement Opposing the Use of Military Force in Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul, October 8 2002
"I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war."

"But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, ... we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously."

"I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid."

"The 'no-fly zones' were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations... While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq."

"According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993."

"(A)ccording to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector, 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapon capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless."

"A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s ... These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us -- and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States."

"The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States."



Unintended Consequences, Dr. Ron Paul, November 14 2002
"Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government 'benevolence' in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible."

"The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000. More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best."

"There are numerous other possible consequences. Here are a few worth contemplating:

No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S. 'allies.'

Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. ... Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.

Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s -- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability.

Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.

Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland.

Anti-Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s 'King of the Hill' must be brought down will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.

Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war breaks out. Membership is already pervasive throughout the world without any centralized control. We should expect this to continue, with an explosion in membership and a negative impact around the world. Our attack will confirm to the doubters that bin Laden was right in assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern resources and dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel over the Palestinians.

Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further.

This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily usher in a 'regime change' here in the United States. The conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire economy."

"The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming war, will be that the people of the United States will be less free and much poorer. The bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering."


2003

Another United Nations War? Dr. Ron Paul, February 26 2003
"The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security - and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power."

"From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further."

"With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations."



The Myth of War Prosperity, Dr. Ron Paul, March 4 2003
"The argument goes that when a country is at war, jobs are created and the economy grows. This is a myth. Many argue that World War II ended the Great Depression, which is another myth. Unemployment went down because many men were drafted, but national economic output went down during the war. Economic growth and a true end to the Depression did not occur until after World War II. So it is wrong to think there is an economic benefit arising from war."

"During wartime, it is much more common to experience inflation because the money presses are running to fund military expenses. Also, during wartime, there is a bigger challenge to the currency of the warring nation, and already we see that the dollar has dropped 20 percent in the past year... [D]during wartime the country can expect that taxes will go up. ... And it is inevitable that deficits increase. And right now our deficits are exploding."

"There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope. And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size. It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war. This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore, it diminishes personal individual liberty."

"So these are the costs that we cannot ignore. We have the cost of potential loss of life, but there are also tremendous economic costs that even the best economists cannot calculate closely."

"We went into Iraq without a declaration of war. We went there under the U.N., we are still there, and nobody knows how long we will be there. So there are many costs, some hidden and some overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost of war is the threat to individual liberty."
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Friday, February 20, 2009

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

'Ron Paul Told Us So' - On foreign policy during the Clinton years


"Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys
from the bad guys, and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests
always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth."
- Dr. Ron Paul, April 21 1999 in the House of Representatives

From the time of his return to Congress in 1996 to the present, Ron Paul has staunchly opposed the hyper-interventionist foreign policy of the US government. Well before the election of George W. Bush and the events of 9/11, Dr. Paul repeatedly told his compatriots in Congress that provocative US actions abroad imperiled the American people by increasing the likelihood of terrorist 'blowback.' Moreover, he warned of the dangers inherent in a presidency unconstrained by constitutional limits, and he foresaw that the road to empire was likely to end in national ruin and bankruptcy.

This page is a partial record of Ron Paul's statements on foreign policy from the Clinton era, with a few highlights bolded below.

"When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often
can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans
as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world. But when
a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government
will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well."
- Dr. Ron Paul, April 21 1999 in the House of Representatives

2000
Our Foolish War in the Middle East, November 20 2000
America's Role in the United Nations, September 18 2000
The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, March 13 2000
Relations with Russia: It's time to end US interventionism, January 31 2000

1999
US Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism brings Death, Destruction, and Loss of Life, November 17 1999
US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, April 21 1999
Crisis in Kosovo, April 14 1999
Playing with matches in the powder keg, April 5 1999
Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, March 29 1999
Peace, March 25 1999
Closer to Empire, March 25 1999
US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, March 24 1999
War Powers Resolution, March 17 1999
Debate on peacekeeping operations in Kosovo resolution, March 11 1999
War power authority should be returned to Congress, March 9 1999
Stopping the President's New Little War, February 15 1999
How long will the war with Iraq go on before Congress notices? February 2 1999
The State of the Republic (or 'Congress relinquishing the power to wage war'), February 2 1999

1998
Debate on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: Setting the Stage for War, October 5 1998
"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog, August 24 1998
Removing US armed forces from Bosnia and Herzegovina, March 17 1998
US should stop meddling in foreign wars, March 16 1998
US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq, February 16 1998
State of the Republic, January 28 1998
Bombing Iraq would the Result of Flawed Foreign Policy, January 27 1998

1997
Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace, November 24 1997
America's Foreign Policy, July 15 1997


2000

Our Foolish War in the Middle East, Dr. Ron Paul, November 20 2000
"It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons but instead to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active."

"Our policy in the Middle East cannot possibly be successful. It's obvious there will be an inevitable conflict between our support for the moderate Arabs - which antagonizes the Islamic fundamentalists of this region - and our special treatment for Israel. It is clear that the powerful financial interests of this country want to use our military force to protect their commercial and oil interests in this region, while there will always remain powerful U.S. political support for the State of Israel. The two sides never will be reconciled by our attempt to balance our support by giving help to both sides. This is exactly opposite of being neutral and friends with both sides. The one reason why this confrontation is going to continue is that 75% of known oil reserves are now owned by Muslims around the world."

"As the world becomes less stable due to currency, trade, and other economic reasons, this region will become even more volatile. We should expect higher oil prices. Hatred toward America will continue to escalate, and United States' security will continue to be diminished due to the threat of terrorist attacks. All the anti-ballistic missiles in the world will not be able to protect us against attacks such as the Cole suffered, or from the nuclear and biological weapons that can be brought into this country in a suitcase."


America's Role in the United Nations, Dr. Ron Paul, September 18 2000
"Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than real. Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and again presented Congress with already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress's hand to support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation's servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger."

"This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order."

"The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to `steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,' lest the nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments."


The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, March 13 2000
"David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of '100,000 or more' was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim ... Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally."

"Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations, as well as from our own government ... The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy."


Relations with Russia: It's time to end US interventionism, Dr. Ron Paul, January 31 2000
"Shortly after (Yeltsin's) replacement Vladimir Putin came to power, a very somber event occurred. Namely, the Kremlin granted him more power to use nuclear weapons. The first reason given for this change in policy was that the expansion of NATO had caused the Russians to see a threat drawing closer to them which had not been previously perceived. The second reason - the war in Yugoslavia had made it apparent that there is now a NATO precedent for launching an attack into a country that had not itself attacked any NATO member."

"The Russian bear has never stopped being a ferocious one, and our own policy, which is analogous to continually poking, prodding, and otherwise 'climbing into the cage' with that bear, is not and has not been in our own best interests. Through the IMF, the World Bank, and other such entities, we have continued to provide foreign aid to the bear. In doing this, we are in essence feeding a very unfriendly entity."

"US leaders have told us how we need to continue subsidizing the bear because that is the way, so they say, to keep the Russians "on our side." The latest moves indicate that Russia will pursue what is in her national interests regardless of any US subsidies they may receive. Thus, when we subsidize foreign countries, we subsidize their national interests - interests that are, more or less frequently, bound to be inimical to our own."


1999

US Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism brings Death, Destruction, and Loss of Life, Dr. Ron Paul, November 17 1999
"Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought death and destruction to many foreign lands, and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred.

There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society."

"I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own."


US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 21 1999
"The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes. Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory after suffering much themselves, as well as face war crimes trials run by the West, makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results would be."

"If it is the suffering and the refugees that truly motivate our actions, there is no answer to the perplexing question of why no action was taken to help the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timor, Tibet, Chechnya, Kurdish, Turkey, and for the Palestinians in Israel. This is not a reason; it is an excuse. Instead, we give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities. How many refugees, how many childrens' deaths has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a defenseless, poverty-ridden Iraq? Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war."

"The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo's secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international, special-interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations. But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young Americans to fight for Kosovo's independence. It is wrong legally and morally; and besides, the KLA is not likely to institute a model nation respecting civil liberties of all its citizens."

"The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the interventionists, whose goal is one world government, so determined to defend a questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and independent Tibet, and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence."

"Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys, and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides."

"Unfortunately, our policies usually backfire and do more harm than good. When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world."

"But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics."

"The United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A civil war that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO's interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed."

"Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO."

"Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so prone to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting, even Communists. In recent months, four separate sovereign nations were bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record."

"Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism, supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part the opposition came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party, while today, supporting one's own party's position to bomb the Serbs becomes politically correct.

The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of interventionism, constitutionality, and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.

The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy, and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politician's good judgment. And when it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets about the restraints when it is not convenient."


Crisis in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 14 1999
"It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state."

"There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not (a) reason for us to go to war."


Playing with matches in the powder keg, Dr. Ron Paul, April 5 1999
"The Administration's track record on military engagement is disastrous, even if one accepts their interventionist philosophy. Not a single foreign entanglement of this Administration has achieved a single one of its goals. Yet far be it for this Administration to learn from past mistakes and put a more sensible foreign policy in place."

"Of course, what is also not lost on our military is that this Administration does not really worry about things like military morale. After all, the Air Force is trying to wage this mission with a record low number of pilots, diminishing weapons, and resorting to cannibalizing pilot-less aircraft for spare parts. The other branches are likewise seeing fewer recruits. And it is no wonder! Why would any young person choose military service -- or to stay in the military -- when it may require being captured by hostile forces, in the most untenable of situations, while performing missions that have no relation to our national security under the command of foreign leaders."


Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, Dr. Ron Paul, March 29 1999
"This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends."

"Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance."

"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years."


Peace, Dr. Ron Paul, March 25 1999
"Mr. Speaker, today I rise and with gratitude to Edmund Burke and paraphrase words he first spoke 224 years ago this week ... Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other -- and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these."


Closer to Empire, Dr. Ron Paul, March 25 1999
"Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq, and in Bosnia--when combined with America's role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world, is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose.
  • I remind those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.
  • To pragmatists, agnostics and such, I point to the decline and fall which has historically attended every other empire. The Ottomans and Romans, the Spanish and the British, all who have tried empire have faltered, and at great costs to their own nations.
  • Mr. Speaker, to liberals I would remind that these interventions, however well-intended they may be, all require the use of forces of occupation, and this is the key step toward colonialism, itself always leading to subjugation and to oppression.
  • To conservatives, I want to recall the founding of our Republic, our nation's breaking from the yoke of empire in order that we might realize the benefits of liberty and self-determination, and that we might obtain the blessings that flow naturally from limitations on centralized power. Empire [is] the most perfect means yet devised to concentrate power in the fewest hands."
"Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of governments they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference."

"The most dangerous thing about where we are headed is our lack of historical memory and our disastrous inattention to the effect of the principles upon which we act, for ideas do indeed have consequences, Mr. Speaker, and they pick up a momentum that becomes all their own.

I do believe that we are on the brink, Mr. Speaker, but it is not yet too late. Soon I fear the train, as it is said, will have left the station. We stand on the verge of crossing that line that so firmly distinguishes empire from republic. This occurs not so much by an action or series of actions but by the acceptance of an idea, the idea that we have a right, a duty, an obligation, or a national interest to perfect foreign nations, even while we remain less than principled ourselves.

When will we, as a people and as an institution, say `we choose to keep our republic, your designs for empire interest us not in the least.' I can only hope it will be soon, for it is my sincerest fear that failing to do so much longer will put us beyond this great divide."


US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, Dr. Ron Paul, March 24 1999
As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail. Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war."

"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty."

"Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own."


War Powers Resolution, Dr. Ron Paul, March 17 1999
"Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein's power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children."

"The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States' plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? `This violence is all America's fault,' one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?"

"As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises, and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalists ever dreamed of. We are at a crossroads, and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved."


Debate on peacekeeping operations in Kosovo resolution, Dr. Ron Paul, March 11 1999
"The bigger question here, however, is if we vote for this, and I strongly oppose passing this, because if we vote for this, we authorize the moving of troops into a dangerous area. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to vote for this resolution; are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our children or our grandchildren; to not only be exposed to the danger, with the pretext we are going to save the world, but with the idea that we may lose our life?"


War power authority should be returned to Congress, Dr. Ron Paul, March 9 1999
"Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force. We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is making a public statement as to his intentions, and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq. That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be condemned."

"The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers' dollars are spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby our Nation commits itself to war."

"The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation."

"Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution."


Stopping the President's New Little War, Dr. Ron Paul, February 15 1999
"We spend less and less money every year on our own defense while spending more and more policing the world. It would be better to spend on national defense projects the money now being wasted in Bosnia, Iraq, and other locales around the world. Moreover, our nation would be undeniably stronger by not having our soldiers killed in pointless 'police' actions."

"It is remarkable that the president is planning to send troops to Kosovo, a section of Serbia. The Serbia leader, Slobodan Milosevic, is the last of the hard-line communists still ruling a former Soviet Bloc nation. For his well-documented reign of terror, Milosevic has rightfully earned the title 'Butcher of the Balkans.' Despite all this, the president is sending our troops to Kosovo to keep independence-minded people under the ruthless hand of Milosevic. One task to be assigned our troops will be the disarming of the Kosovo Liberation Army. While supporting Milosevic is hardly rational, it makes even less sense to take actions that will serve only to pit Kosovars against Americans. How ironic that at the dawn of this century Americans were viewed as the champions of liberty, yet in its closing days we will be using our might to support a communist butcher."

"According to the US Constitution and American tradition, it is not a prerogative of the president to send troops around the world to fight the battles that do not concern us. Congress must re-exert its constitutional authority and stop presidents from sending troops into harm's way. Most immediately, Congress must stop President Clinton's new little war in the Balkans."


How long will the war with Iraq go on before Congress notices? Dr. Ron Paul, February 2 1999
"Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer than the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States. The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount."

"The Constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America."

Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us."


The State of the Republic (or 'Congress relinquishing the power to wage war'), Dr. Ron Paul, February 2 1999
"[T]he power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution, or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place, and for any reason."

"Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and if we continue to allow our Presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved. The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers."

"Approval of presidential-directed aggression, disguised as `support for the troops,' comes routinely, and if any member does not obediently endorse every action a President might take, for whatever reason, it is implied the member lacks patriotism and wisdom. It is amazing how we have drifted from the responsibility of the Founders, imagine, the Congress and the people would jealously protect. It is too often and foolishly argued that we must permit great flexibility for the President to retaliate when American troops are in danger. But this is only after the President has invaded and placed our troops in harm's way."

"By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations, or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world."

"The basic problem here is that there are still too many Members of Congress who endorse a presidency armed with the authority of a tyrant to wage war. But if this assumption of power by the President with Congress' approval is not reversed, the republic cannot be maintained. Putting the power in the hands of a single person, the president, to wage war, is dangerous and costly, and it destroys the notion that the people through their Congressional representatives decide when military action should start and when war should take place. The sacrifice of this constitutional principle, guarded diligently for 175 years and now severely eroded in the past 50, must be restored if we hope to protect our liberties and avoid yet another unnecessary and, heaven-forbid, major world conflict."

"A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts, and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.

The best of all situations is when the spirit of the republic is one and the same, as the law itself, and honorable men are in positions of responsibility to carry out the law. Even though we cannot guarantee the future Congress' or our president's moral commitment to the principles of liberty by changing the law, we still must make every effort possible to make the law and the Constitution as morally sound as possible.

Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic."

[Back to Top]


1998

Debate on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: Setting the Stage for War, Dr. Ron Paul, October 5 1998
"I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades. For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq's ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds, and giving him technology for chemical weapons."

"Not too long ago, a few years back, in the 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world, we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology, and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President's response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant."

"So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us."

"We can hardly be sympathetic to the Kurds who are being punished by the Iraqis at the same time we are paying the Turks to do the same thing to the Kurds. So there is something awful inconsistent about this."


"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog, Dr. Ron Paul, August 24 1998
"Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan 'Freedom Fighters.' Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States. Finally, the region's Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America's presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims --and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular -- see American policy as identical to Israel's policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans. Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement, and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice -- terror."

"Our current policy in the Middle East is indeed a threat to our security, for it puts more Americans in increased danger. Protecting our so-called interests, i.e., controlling Arab oil, is not worth the danger of giving the Islamic extremists the ammunition and the incentive to unite an entire region -- a region which quite possibly has access to nuclear weapons -- against all American citizens around the world."

"Let us hear no more of our 'obligation' to spread democracy around the world in the name of preserving our national security. We're not doing a very good job of respecting individual liberty or the Rule of Law here at home, and it is unlikely we can simply bully others into our mode of thinking."


Removing US armed forces from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr. Ron Paul, March 17 1998
"There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot. So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a (non-interventionist) foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm's way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger."

"But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote, and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO, and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies."


US should stop meddling in foreign wars, Dr. Ron Paul, March 16 1998
"Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. It is telling that while Congress cannot find a way to make serious tax cuts or reforms to the IRS, reduce spending or erase the bureaucratic red tape, our national leaders can daily find new hot-spots around the world to send our military and our money."

"All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions. The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate, and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part."

"This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade, and non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world's natural resources? Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing."


US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul, February 16 1998
"Earlier that day, I introduced HR 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those banging for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best."

"But while the politicians are talking about sending our troops to battle, the American people are becoming more concerned with the unforeseen, or, rather, undiscussed, consequences. Up to now, no one has been able to show that Iraq has either the ability or the intentions to attack the United States. Foolish actions against that nation will only make it more likely that American citizens and cities could be targeted for terrorist or military attacks."

"Finally, before committing our troops to this action and opening our people and cities to the possibility of retaliatory attack, we must focus on the consistency of our priorities. According to February 12 stories by the Reuters News Service, from 1985 to 1989 the United States and England provided Hussein with biological weapons - the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing, according to American and British intelligence documents. Further, we know that at least 20 nations are developing weapons of mass destruction, and there are numerous nations that already possess them. Does that mean we must attack them all, for fear of their possible use?"

"According to the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. My legislation prohibits Defense Department funds from being used for offensive actions against Iraq without Congress legally declaring a war. It is a sad indictment of our government that it takes legislation to force the President and the Congress to follow the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, especially when dealing with issues of life and death for our troops and our people."


State of the Republic, Dr. Ron Paul, January 28 1998
"Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny."

"The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of Bosnia. Yet the President gets all the funding he wants. The Members of Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, the President, the military industrial complex, and the special interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens."

"In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by power, oil, and money ... It is hardly violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction that motivates us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy. We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing. There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq's control of weapons of mass destruction.

Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous because the history of the West's intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists that guarantees that friction will persist in this region no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us."

[Back to Top]


Bombing Iraq would be the Result of Flawed Foreign Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, January 27 1998
"Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense. There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of Presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council."

"Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein, unify the Islamic Fundamentalists, and expose American citizens to terrorist attacks. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit to further stir the hatred and blame toward America for all the approximate harm he has inflicted on his people."


1997

Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace, Dr. Ron Paul, November 24 1997
"Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs. Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce."

"The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a 'cheap' war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the 'price' innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers."

"Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey's policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who's controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians."

"The main goal of American policy appears to be to kill Hussein. If there was a clear understanding of this region, one would realize that this would probably lead to more chaos, more hatred toward America, and most likely cause a greater threat of terrorism here in the United States."


America's Foreign Policy, Dr. Ron Paul, July 15 1997
"The U.S. record of foreign intervention and its failures have not yet prompted a serious discussion of the need for an overall reassessment of this dangerous and out-of-control policy. Not only has Congress failed in its responsibilities to restrain our adventurous Presidents in pursuing war, spying, and imposing America's will on other nations by installing leaders and at times eliminating others throughout the world these past 50 years, we now, by default, have allowed our foreign policy to be commandeered by international bodies like NATO and the United Nations nations. This can only lead to trouble for the United States and further threaten our liberties, and we have already seen plenty of that in this century."

"Must we have perpetual war to keep the military appropriations flowing? Does our military work hand in glove in securing new markets? It is not a hidden fact that our own CIA follows our international corporate interests around the globe engaging in corporate espionage and installing dictators when they serve these special interests."

"The military industrial complex and its powerful political supporters continue to be well represented in the media and in Washington. Unfortunately, the idea that America is responsible to police the world and provide the funding and the backup military power to impose `peace' in all the disturbed regions of the world remains a policy endorsed by leaders in both parties. The sooner this policy is challenged and changed, the better off we will be. Our budget will not permit it; it threatens our national security, and worst of all, it threatens our personal liberties."
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

12. Open Letter to the Editors of Willamette Week

Portland Ron Paul Meetup group welcomes its newest member
(From left to right) Manuel, Alyssa, Steve M., Nadia, Ryan, that new guy,
Karen, some fella managing a crisis, Karl, Scott



"Modern journalism justifies its own existence by the great Darwininian principle of the survival of the vulgarest."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"A newswriter is a man without virtue, who writes lies at home for his own profit. To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither industry nor sprightliness; but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely necessary."
- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)


As many of you know, the Portland Ron Paul Meetup group holds four weekly "Banner Brigades" across town during rush hour. At last Wednesday's event, a reporter for Willamette Week (our local, weekly circular) dropped in to interview the attendees. Click here for the online version of the article, which also appeared in the print version of Willamette Week.

Needless to say, local Ron Paul supporters were mighty displeased with the product. So this evening, I sent the following e-mail to the reporter and Willamette Week's editors.

- - - - - - - - - -

September 12, 2007

Mr. Zusman, Mr. Gillingham, and Mr. Leonard: Below, you will find my 'Letter to the Editor' regarding Mr. Leonard's article on Ron Paul in today's Willamette Week. An unfinished version with linked sources is posted in the online Comments section of the article (see http://wweek.com/editorial/3344/9536/).

QUESTION: This evening, I've read more than 25 responses from Ron Paul supporters regarding today's article by Mr. Leonard. With few exceptions (including myself, at this point), these people believe it was something of a 'hit piece' intended to de-legitimize and undermine Dr. Paul's campaign. They primarily base this conclusion on the following points:
  1. The article's title of "Ron Co." is an apparent play on Ronco, a company perceived by many as a purveyor of cheesy infomercials, gimmicks, and cheap products -- a negative association.

  2. The article's dismissal of Ron Paul's chances, along with an interesting selection of quotes that convey the idea that even Dr. Paul's supporters think "he has no chance" (not true). While the 'no-chance' mantra is standard boilerplate in conventional media stories on Ron Paul, it's not something I expected to see in Willamette Week.

  3. Of the included quotes, one was taken out of context (Karl Huber's), and all were selected for use over substantive quotes regarding Ron Paul's track record, platform, and character -- I know because I spoke only of such topics in my time with Mr. Leonard. People participate in our group's activities because of their support for the ideas championed by Dr. Paul -- not because they see the Meetup as a social or singles club, which is the demeaning gist of your article. (Note: Mr. Huber's comment was a reference to the fact that Dr. Paul's supporters are not centrally organized or directed, but rather self-organizing and self-directed).

  4. The article failed to mention that Mr. Leonard witnessed many positive reactions to our signs, while including the comment that, "Most motorists whizzed past, though there was an occasional driver flipping the bird." This statement not only misrepresents what happened during Mr. Leonard's visit with us, it also implies that our 'Banner Brigades' fail to prompt any positive responses from motorists. (Far
    from the case - see below for further details.)
One person summed it up by saying that the piece "is a deliberate and uncharitable falsification of what the reader's neighbors think. Politics is perception, and the author intentionally and willfully lied to create in the reader the impression that most of the reader's neighbors are hostile to Ron Paul. The intent can only have been to suggest that the reader, too, should adopt that posture. At least, I can't think of any other possible motivation."

In Mr. Leonard's defense, I don't know how much of the piece was his work, and how much was the result of the editing process -- and it's quite possible that some of the article's shortcomings were simply the result of honest error and oversight. So, personally, I'm willing to give Mr. Leonard the benefit of the doubt -- although this piece diminishes my confidence and trust in Willamette Week. Taken as a whole, the preceding points (and those raised below) seem to indicate a lack of concern by Willamette Week for objectivity and accuracy in its reporting.

So my question for you is -- why should Ron Paul supporters trust Willamette Week in the future? What reasons can you give us?

With each passing day, the Ron Paul campaign gains momentum, and its national grassroots base continues to grow. This campaign will continue to be one of the hottest stories of the 2008 presidential race, and our group's activism will continue to make waves locally. Unfortunately, Willamette Week may miss some great opportunities to cover this story, since this article has alienated many of Ron Paul's local supporters -- which means that securing interviews won't be an easy task for your reporters in the future.

If Willamette Week's intent is to sway public opinion against Ron Paul, I suppose that may not trouble you. But if you value journalistic integrity and 'scooping' your competition, you might re-consider your approach.

Sincerely,

Scott ...


- - - - - - - - - -


LETTER TO THE EDITOR
September 12, 2007

To the Editor,

I attended the "Banner Brigade" cited in Mr. Leonard's article, and I spent 10-15 minutes speaking with him about Ron Paul's unparalleled Congressional record in opposition to non-defensive US militarism, violations of our civil liberties, and state-corporate cronyism (i.e., Dr. Paul is an unflinching opponent of 'corporate welfare,' and has never voted for any measure that grants a special favor or privilege to corporate interests).

In the early stages of the 2008 presidential race, much of the limited, conventional-media coverage of Dr. Paul's campaign has distorted and misrepresented his views. Consequently, I was concerned that Mr. Leonard might do the same in this initial coverage in Willamette Week. I'm happy to say this concern proved unfounded, as Mr. Leonard's brief statements on Dr. Paul's record and platform are accurate.

However, while Mr. Leonard deserves some credit for this, his article suffers from two shortcomings. First, Mr. Leonard's piece gives the impression that people either ignore our signs or "flip us off," which simply isn't true. I've attended several Banner Brigades to date, and the predominantly positive response has really surprised me. Based on my experience, I estimate that 10-15% of people respond in some way to our signs -- and of those, about 90% are positive, as people wave, honk their horns, give a thumbs up, and/or, yell encouragement out their windows. Mr. Leonard saw many such responses during his visit with us.

Second, the article implies that our activities are an isolated phenomenon, while making no mention of the building, quantifiable wave of national support for Dr. Paul. In addition to Paul's well-documented dominance of the Internet, he:
  1. Consistently draws more people at public appearances than any other Republican candidate,

  2. Has finished in the top three in 17 of the 23 straw polls held as of September 4th (which includes nine first-place finishes),

  3. Has won three of the four post-debate polls run by the hosting network (including text-message polls in which users are prevented from voting multiple times),

    and

  4. Is backed by an unmatched grassroots following, as evidenced by the existence of 886 Ron Paul Meetup groups consisting of over 38,000 members. The next closest candidate, Barack Obama, has only 68 Meetup groups with just over 4,200 members (see http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/).

Anyway, Willamette Week and Mr. Leonard, thank you for publishing a mostly fair (albeit somewhat misleading) piece about Dr. Paul and our local efforts in support of his campaign.

Scott Sutton
Portland, Oregon
ValueFreedom.blogspot.com
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Thursday, September 6, 2007

11. Ron Paul in the Fox den

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell (1903-1950)

"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton (1829-1901), former managing editor of the the New York Times circa 1880


Regarding these YouTubes -- here and here -- of Ron Paul's electrifying performance in Wednesday's Republican debate, a friend wrote: "When they ask him questions, listen to someone in the background laughing. Did you notice?"

Needless to say, I did notice -- as did any attentive soul who slogged through this latest charade of a 'debate.' As expected, we witnessed a series of shameless and purposeful tactics intended to undermine Dr. Paul, including:
  • The repeated, unfiltered, derogatory laughter of a miked attendee,

  • The openly hostile, pre-meditated line of questioning, typified by Chris Wallace's "You're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?", and

  • The post-debate coverage, where we saw the over-matched Hannity rudely attempt to 'educate' Dr. Paul on international affairs, as well as Colmes' dishonest dismissal of yet another Ron Paul post-debate poll victory (see http://dailypaul.com/node/1906).
Moreover, Fox attempted to "ice" Dr. Paul in both the debate and post-debate coverage. In the debate, his first question came after 30 minutes and, in some cases, after multiple questions had been asked of other candidates. And in the fourth consecutive post-debate 'round-up,' they interviewed Dr. Paul last -- or damn near last, despite the fact he's the only reason to watch these 'debates' at all -- and they know it.

The bias was so blatant that only a Faux News drone could miss it. (For further details, see this post.)

But you know what?

IT

JUST

DOESN'T

MATTER.

Not only did Dr. Paul sweep the floor with the Neo-Clones, but the bias and corruption of Faux News is apparent to anyone with a pair of ears and an active brain between 'em. And in the modern era, we're no longer beholden to the manipulations of state-empowering media sources. The establishment's grip on the minds of Americans erodes with each passing day, a process accelerated by every Ron Paul address, interview, quip, column, and appearance -- as well as each blog posted, truth told, lie exposed, sign painted, e-mail sent, banner hoisted, sticker seen, deception bared, piece written, rally held, t-shirt worn, myth debunked, sky-ad flown, falsehood challenged, brochure passed, yard sign planted, clipping read, YouTube made, question raised, mind opened, and pretzel eaten (well, maybe not the pretzels ...).

Wednesday night, in his few allotted seconds of camera time, Ron smoked the competition -- again -- and he dominated the post-debate poll with over 30% of text-message responses (and be sure to watch THIS and THIS). Even Mike 'Iron-Fist-of-Unity' Huckabee inadvertently praised Ron in his own post-debate interview ... twice! (See this clip.)
"I have great respect for Congressman Paul -- he's a man who has deep convictions, he stands by them, he doesn't care who likes him or who doesn't, and for that I appreciate him." - Mike Huckabee, September 5, 2007

"If you look at it, there's really one candidate of all of us who is substantially different than the rest of us; that's Congressman Paul." - Mike Huckabee, September 5, 2007
Ain't that the truth.

Where we go from here is anybody's guess, but two things are certain. One, our building momentum gets yet another bump from the latest Ron Paul Moment -- and two, the establishment's sleep grows increasingly restless.

Postscript: In his latest e-mail to supporters, Dr. Paul described the following post-debate scene:
"After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, 'security' ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty."
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Thursday, September 06, 2007

Friday, August 31, 2007

10. The foreign policy of other candidates

"If this phrase of the 'balance of power' is to be always an argument for war, the pretext for war will never be wanting, and peace can never be secure."
– John Bright (1811-1889), British statesman and co-founder of the Anti-Corn Law League

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
– H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)


In Washington DC, conventional wisdom has long held that the US government should maintain an interventionist foreign policy to secure our "national interests" and ensure "stability" around the world. For many years, American politicians have invoked these vague rationales to justify a host of unwise and unseemly activities abroad. In a previous post, I described some of these routine practices, which include:
  • The arming and funding of tyrants,

  • Military occupation of more than 100 countries,

  • Covert operations to manipulate the internal affairs of other nations, and

  • Overt participation in foreign conflicts.
These practices foster deep-seated, anti-American sentiment, while diminishing the economic and civil-liberty prospects for future generations of Americans. Moreover, our hyper-interventionist foreign policy illustrates the 'Law of Unintended Consequences,' as past interventions produce results that were either unforeseen or unheeded by the planners -- complications that, in turn, serve as the rationale for future interventions. (For an illustrative piece on past American forays in the Middle East, see this sad but amusing clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.)

Of the current field of presidential candidates, only Dr. Ron Paul opposed the interventionist paradigm throughout the Clinton/Bush era. While forewarning of the consequences of modern US foreign policy, Dr. Paul consistently advocated a return to the principles of strength, neutrality, restraint, and federalism advised by the Founding Fathers (a forgotten tradition I'll address in my next post). In the eyes of most other candidates, all of planet Earth now falls under the jurisdiction of the US government, and the President has the authority to intervene abroad as he (or she) sees fit. In principle, none of the "top-tier" (i.e. media-anointed) candidates oppose the rise of the "Imperial Presidency," a trend that has eviscerated Constitutional checks and balances while centralizing power in the executive branch -- they simply differ over which one of them should be the next Caesar.

From what I've seen, the other Republican candidates endorse a belligerent foreign policy that would continue America's involvement in an endless series of wars. Regrettably, the leading Democrats aren't much better. As evidenced by the articles below, the media-anointed candidates in both parties accept the premises and practices of American interventionism, while limiting their public debate to questions about logistics and implementation, such as:
  • How many troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely?

  • Which thugs should the US arm and finance now?

  • Which country should the US bomb or invade next?

  • And, most alarmingly, which civilian populations should the US threaten with a nuclear attack?
Of course, one can learn just as much about a politician by paying close attention to what he (or she) does not say, as what he does say. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, none of the media-anointed candidates have:
  • Called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq. If they broach this topic at all, they speak only of partial 're-deployment,' while making no mention of the 14 permanent military bases recently constructed in that country.

  • Challenged the influence of special interests on American foreign policy -- most notably, the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

  • Repudiated the doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war (i.e. aggressive war).

  • Called for any reduction in global US meddling, occupations, or militarism. On the contrary, most stump for a more 'vigorous' and 'robust' foreign policy.
But perhaps most importantly, none of the other candidates acknowledge that US global interventionism is simply unsustainable in the long run. Eventually, all empires collapse of their own weight, and the United States is rapidly approaching the point of no return. Today, "defense" expenditures total over $1 trillion annually, and the national debt has soared to over $50 trillion (official debt plus projected entitlements; approximately $166,000 per American).

So the question is not IF the United States should retract its global grip, but rather WHEN will it do so, and under what circumstances. Will it be a time of America's choosing, under reasonably amenable conditions -- or a time when a draw-down is necessitated by fiscal, military, and/or logistical reality?

As awful as it is, the Iraq War is merely a symptom of the root problem -- America's hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Not only has Dr. Paul accurately diagnosed the problem for many years -- he's the only presidential candidate who confronts the issue while prescribing the only effective cure.



"Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys, and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth."
– Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, April 21, 1999


Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons: United and Interchangeable, by Philip Giraldi (former CIA officer and a partner in Cannistraro Associates)
  • "(M)any of the leading candidates' advisers are graduates of the same school of thought, i.e., that the United States must use its military power to impose certain standards on the rest of the world. Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way."

  • "(Hillary Clinton's) foreign policy advisers are a who's who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was 'worth it.' Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz ... (and) has been a supporter of the Iraq war."

  • "(Giuliani advisor) Norman Podhoretz has called for a World War IV against Islamofascism, which presumably means a war against all Muslim countries until they surrender ... Fred Thompson is being advised by Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president."

  • "It is very discouraging to note that the advocates of the Iraq war, which is almost universally seen as Washington's greatest foreign policy blunder of the past hundred years, are continuing to play a major role in the shaping of policy for the next generation of political leaders of both parties."
Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq, by Ira Chernus (Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, and author of Monsters to Destroy)
  • "(T)he Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war ... while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time ... The Democrats currently topping the polls ... are proving themselves eminently qualified in doublespeak."

  • "A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects US troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017 ... 'America must be the world's leader,' (Clinton) declared last month. 'We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required.'"

  • "(Obama's foreign policy) delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly: 'His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.… To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.'"

  • "'Stabilization' is yet another establishment code word for insuring US control.... The top Democrats agree that we must leave significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq ... to prevent chaos and bring order and stabilization to that country -- as if US troops were not already creating chaos and instability there every day. But among the foreign policy elite, the US is always a force for order, 'helping' naturally chaotic foreigners achieve 'stability.'"

  • "With an election looming, the Democrats portray themselves as the polar opposite of the Republicans. They blame the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush and the neocons, conveniently overlooking all the support Bush got from the Democratic elite before his military venture went sour."

  • "The outcome (of the election) will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it's still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance. Yet it's those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war. It's those goals that should be addressed.... Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren't about to take up the task."
Rudy Giuliani: Confused, Ignorant, or Deceitful? by Doug Bandow (former Special Assistant in the Reagan Administration)
  • "Giuliani's plea for remaining in Iraq sounds an awful lot like the man who murders his parents and then requests public assistance for being an orphan. Yes, we blew up Iraq and the Mideast and created an awful mess. Yes, we opened Iraq to religious strife and immeasurably strengthened Iran's geopolitical position. Yes, we set the stage for regional Sunni-Shi'ite conflict. But now you have to support us as we attempt to clean up the mess. Otherwise things will get really bad."

  • "(T)he American people understand what Giuliani does not: fighting an unnecessary war in a hostile land that is viewed unfavorably around the world creates more terrorists than it kills... Daniel Benjamin of the Brookings Institution told Congress earlier this year that 'the invasion of Iraq gave the jihadists an unmistakable boost. Terrorism is about advancing a narrative and persuading a targeted audience to believe it.' U.S. policies 'have too often lent inadvertent confirmation to the terrorists' narrative.' "

  • "Is (Giuliani) prepared to conscript American young people if they don't share his enthusiasm for fighting the many wars he expects to wage around the world?The problem is not an insufficient military, but too many commitments. Why are U.S. troops still stationed in Germany, South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, and more? Giuliani doesn't say. Yet he wants the U.S. to guarantee the security of more nations. "

  • "What is Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy? A bigger Army, Navy, and Air Force. Prosecuting the war in Iraq until liberal democracy emerges. Bombing Iran. Invading more countries to defenestrate bad regimes and suppress disorder. Attacking more countries to kill the additional terrorists created by his more frequent interventions. Confronting China and Russia.... George W. Bush already has done his best to bankrupt the nation and anger the world. Giuliani would go double or nothing. It's a gamble the American people cannot afford."
Democrats say leaving Iraq may take Years, by Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora (New York Times)
  • "Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years."

  • "John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis."
The Democrats are Selling Out the Peace Movement, by Justin Raimondo (Editorial Director of Antiwar.com)
  • "(T)he whole point of leaving Iraq – aside from stopping the killing, the senseless American sacrifices, and the billions draining out of the Treasury – is to ensure that we don't get sucked into a conflict beyond that country's borders."

  • "When the rhetoric (toward Iran) really begins to smoke, they'll spark a shooting war by overblowing some border incident and framing the war question in terms of regaining America's 'honor.' Will we 'cut and run'? Or stand and fight? It's an argument the War Party always wins – until it comes out that the incident in question was either completely manufactured (as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident during the Vietnam War era), provoked by the Americans, or wildly exaggerated."

  • "The ugly truth of the matter is that the Democrats' capitulation on the Iraq war funding issue was rationalized by the pork ladled out to compliant 'antiwar' lefties in Congress. Bribery, in short, in the form of tax dollars handed out to favored interest groups, enabled the party leadership to whip the 'antiwar' faction into line. Pork trumps principle, every time: that's life in the Imperial City, and it's part of the reason why this war is dragging on in spite of the fact that it's wildly unpopular."

  • "Anyone who believes the Democratic party leadership is committed to getting us out of Iraq, and out of the business of world-saving, democracy-exporting, neo-colonialist base-building, is living in a dream world. The party Establishment is in cahoots with the War Party, and not only on the Iraq issue. The neocons, for their part, are just as comfortable supporting Democrats as they are Republicans."

  • "The neocon project is all about creating a reliable ally in the region, a base from which to wage new wars of 'liberation' – and ensure American control over much of the world's dwindling oil supply. What the Democrats are promising, therefore, is to be more successful at being imperialists than their incompetent Republican rivals. This is a distinction without a difference, one that is certainly not worth either voting for or even passively cheering on in the name of 'change.'"
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Friday, August 31, 2007

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

9. Ron Paul for the Long Haul


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
— Mahatma Gandhi

"The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize."
— Saul Bellow

About Ron Paul's Fundraising

On July 15th, the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd quarter fundraising totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:
  • 3rd in total receipts for the quarter

  • 4th in total receipts to date

  • 3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second highest percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."

Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul).

Why, indeed -- President Paul would bring them home now.

The Ron Paul Buzz

As anyone familiar with the Ron Paul campaign knows, official fundraising figures tell only a small part of the story. This campaign is a genuine grassroots movement, driven primarily by the independent efforts of Dr. Paul's enthusiastic supporters -- a wide-ranging constituency that includes disenfranchised anti-war Democrats, traditional conservatives, Constitutionalists, anti-corporatists, free traders, libertarians, Christians, Hindus, atheists, druids, hobbits, wizards, and a host of others. Although a seemingly disparate group, these people share a genuine concern about America's ongoing slide toward authoritarianism, empire, and bankruptcy.

This building wave of support takes many forms -- from the proliferation of Ron Paul Web sites, blogs, and merchandise, to public 'banner brigades' and pamphleteering, to private conversations and e-mail threads -- and some estimates assess the economic value of these independent activities at more than $10 million per quarter.

No candidacy has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics prove the point:
  • "Ron Paul" recently topped Technorati's search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch -- current rank #2 (Technorati is the leading authority on Internet media usage).

  • RonPaul2008.com draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site.

  • On YouTube.com, the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has over 22,000 subscribers, which is 13,000 more than the second most popular candidate (Obama).

  • And on Meetup.com, more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which makes the Good Doctor the most popular Meetup source in the political category. The next candidate, Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups.

    Notes: All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007. Also, for those who don't know, Meetup.com is the most popular Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize events and activities with one another -- consequently, it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating political activities.
Some commentators say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet, the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates have already burned through tens of millions. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated endeavor.

The skeptics also ignore an obvious question -- if it's so easy to jerry-rig Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns done the same? (Answer: It's not easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.) While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name, I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters, it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might attempt to do such things.

That said, I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online success" -- most importantly, the Internet is the primary source of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall -- two full years before the election -- the conventional media and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, & Edwards). Since then, countless opinion makers have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the list of 'viable' Presidential options. In other words, no need to look further -- we've done your thinking for you.

How and why this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint - Follow the money.) The important point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering of media attention since his 'blowback' exchange with Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record and platform must turn to the Internet. The conventional media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis, no matter how much traction he gains.

Consequently, Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word. Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more. As regular readers of this blog know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly honest and fundamental level -- a level of inquiry wholly absent from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor to issues involving civil liberties, health care, immigration, education, our fiat-money system, and so on.

Reading Tea Leaves

Now, I'm not a political analyst, and things could certainly change in a hurry -- but given the current landscape, some future developments seem rather predictable:
First, Ron Paul's Jeffersonian liberalism will give him a significant advantage over his pro-war, neoconservative competitors. While the other candidates vie for the support of the modern Republican base, Ron Paul provides the only real alternative for any traditional conservatives who remain in the party. Without Ron Paul, each GOP debate would be a brain-dead echo chamber.

Perhaps more importantly, Dr. Paul will appeal to those Americans who long ago abandoned politics because the big-government statism of the two major parties was hostile to their values. With recent voter turnout in presidential elections hovering around 50%, this may be a surprisingly large block of potential voters. For Ron Paul supporters, the key will be finding these people and telling them about Dr. Paul -- a simple, mass-marketing numbers game.

Second, due to this ideological edge and campaign realities, we'll witness a steady whittling of the Republican field in coming months -- a thinning that recently began with Jim Gilmore's exit from the race. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates have spent their funds like drunken Congressmen, and the 'second tier' has little to show for their binge. Most of these campaigns suffer from anemic fundraising, a moribund Internet presence, and lackluster crowds (certainly nothing approaching the numerous crowds gathering on Ron Paul's behalf, as documented here, here, here, here, here, and here). By next spring, the existing field of contenders will be reduced to a Final Four -- Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.

Third, Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul -- at least until next September's Republican convention. Thus far, the Paul campaign has run a frugal operation, relying primarily on the efforts of grassroots activists. These efforts are steadily snowballing support, as evidenced by Dr. Paul's three-month ascent from anonymity to 3% in national polls, and that figure will continue to rise at the rate people learn about our candidate. As Jennifer Haman pointed out, Ron Paul leads in the polls of those who have heard him speak. In the meantime, the campaign is shrewdly storing its dry powder -- mounting millions to be meted out at judicious points throughout the campaign.
Only time will tell what the future holds for Ron Paul's presidential bid -- but for now, there's great cause for optimism.
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Friday, July 13, 2007

8. The principled anti-war candidate


"When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world. But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well."
— Dr. Ron Paul, April 21, 1999



As a conscientious and consistent critic of American militarism, Dr. Ron Paul has no peer in the 2008 presidential race. From the habitual warring of the Clinton administration to contemporary belligerence towards Iran, Ron Paul has stood fast and often alone against the martial zeitgeist of our time.

In the 1990s, Dr. Paul:
  • Opposed the widespread deployment of American troops in non-defensive, unconstitutional wars.

  • Challenged the false and flawed rationales for such deployments as those in Kosovo and Bosnia.

  • Voted against the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made 'regime change' the official policy of the US government — a measure that Dr. Paul correctly predicted would lead to open war.

  • Opposed the brutal embargo and repeated bombings of Iraq.

  • Advised Congress that US policies needlessly anger many people around the world, while repeatedly forewarning of terrorist 'blowback.'

In the years prior to the invasion of Iraq, Paul:
  • Opposed the pending conflict on moral, practical, and political grounds.

  • Refuted the 'evidence' that served as the Bush administration's casus belli.

  • Voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which Dr. Paul accurately described as giving the president "the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared."

  • Apprised Congress and his constituents of the ugly, expected consequences.

And since the invasion, he has:
  • Voted against all bills for further funding of the war — a minimum requirement for any candidate in Congress who claims to be 'anti-war.'

  • Advocated US withdrawal, while pointing out that continuing American involvement in an unjustified, unwinnable war is no way to 'support the troops.'

  • Explained the pernicious influence of neo-conservatives on US foreign policy.

  • Called for a thorough investigation of the Bush administration's fraudulent campaign for war.

Some presidential candidates protest select instances of militarism if the opposition party occupies the White House — but dutifully support such actions when a member of 'their' party calls the shots.

Some candidates criticize the Bush Administration's 'mis-management' of the US occupation — despite their role as advocates and enablers of this elective war and others.

Some candidates now chastise the administration for its Iraq propaganda campaign — despite their active participation in spreading alarmist falsehoods during the march to war.

And some candidates carefully calibrate their rhetoric on foreign policy to suit the particular views of each audience.


But not Ron Paul — the principled anti-war candidate.


!!! NEW PAGE Ron Paul on foreign policy during the Clinton years NEW PAGE !!!


"An autocratic system of coercion, in my opinion, soon degenerates. For force always attracts men of low morality, and I believe it to be an invariable rule that tyrants of genius are succeeded by scoundrels ... This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. And yet so high, in spite of everything, is my opinion of the human race that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the nations not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press."

— Albert Einstein, The World as I See It (1931)




Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Friday, July 13, 2007

Sunday, June 24, 2007

7. Ron Paul on US foreign policy

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1801

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force ... She might become the dictatress of the world."
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821


Throughout his tenure in Congress, Dr. Ron Paul has advocated a return to the non-interventionist foreign policy espoused by America's Founding Fathers. Ron Paul has consistently challenged the bi-partisan promotion of global interventionism, while pointing out the inherent negative consequences of such practices as:
  • US financial and military support of foreign governments and factions -- a long list of beneficiaries that includes such odious characters as Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Osama bin Laden, and the House of Saud.

  • Habitual involvement of US troops in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with national defense -- engagements that alienate and enrage those against whom the US government positions itself.

  • The maintenance of US military bases in more than 130 countries around the world -- a global presence that dilutes this country's capacity for genuine defense, and does nothing to dissuade those who view the US as a rapacious, militant empire.

  • Widespread covert operations to engineer Washington-mandated outcomes in other countries -- including activities unknown even to those in Congress, as illustrated once again by the revelations surrounding the CIA's international network of torture prisons.

  • The use of economic sanctions to effect 'regime change' in other countries -- measures that rarely impact ruling elites, but often inflict great suffering on those they rule.

  • Deference to special interests who benefit from interventionism -- perhaps best illustrated by the scores of Capitol Hill lobbyists who curry favor on behalf of the military-industrial-congressional (MIC) complex and foreign governments.
Our interventionist foreign policy has contributed to:
  • A $9 trillion national debt -- an unchosen and ever-growing obligation to be borne by future generations, with potentially dire ramifications for their economic well being.

  • A crisis in civil liberties -- a predictable result of militarism, as demonstrated throughout history.

  • An unchecked executive branch -- a decades-long development with ominous implications for the future, perhaps best exemplified by Congress' abnegation of its constitutional war-making authority.

  • Incessant military conflict since World War II -- an unavoidable consequence when a country's political class holds no principled opposition to the deployment of troops in non-defensive pursuits.

  • Unprecedented anti-American sentiment abroad -- an ironic state of affairs since some people maintain that interventionist policies are needed to engender international goodwill toward the US -- yet interventionism, not "isolationism," is the primary cause of such antipathy.

  • The peril of terrorism -- largely inspired by US actions in the Middle East.

  • The mounting loss of innocent lives -- a reality that should mortify decent people everywhere.
Ostensibly, an interventionist foreign policy was required to combat communism during the Cold War -- but 18 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an open and thorough re-assessment of American interventionism is long overdue.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate with the courage, knowledge, and honesty to initiate this vital discussion with the American people. While the other candidates accept interventionist premises and practices (including those who oppose this particular war), Dr. Paul expounds a fundamental alternative. Perhaps Americans will condone a continuation of the status quo, but we deserve to hear about the costs and consequences of maintaining this course, as well as the reasons underlying the advice of the Founding Fathers.
Below, you will find one of Dr. Paul's congressional addresses on the topic of American foreign policy, which he delivered in the House of Representatives prior to the vote on the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Of this speech, Dr. Paul wrote the following in his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom:
"Since I was against the foreign policy that was leading us into war once again, I needed to be something more than a mere critic; I also needed to state once again what the alternative was. Here, I make the case for a new approach by outlining what exactly we support in the way of foreign affairs."
As the drums of war again beat loudly, I hope you will take a moment to read and consider Dr. Paul's thoughts. For the text, go to:
A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, by Dr. Ron Paul, 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm

Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Sunday, June 24, 2007

6. Statement against the 'surge' in Iraq

On February 14 2007, Ron Paul delivered a House address in opposition to the proposed 'surge' in Iraq. (Excerpts below -- full text here)
"The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel."

"Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"

"Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East."

"For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting 'our' oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess -- implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won’t be a mess. Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!"

"There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today."

Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Sunday, June 24, 2007

5. Ron Paul on 'preemptive' war

(Originally distributed via e-mail on June 9, 2007)

"(A) war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday
in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any
place in the world, is subject to an American invasion without cause."
– Dr. Ron Paul, March 2002

"A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;
and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
– Benjamin Franklin, 1785


In Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN, the candidates were asked "What's the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?" Ron Paul responded by saying:
"I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We, in the past, have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security! I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption ..."
These are not the carefully parsed words of a calculating politician maneuvering for position in tomorrow's polls. On the contrary, these are the words of an honest and conscientious man.

While most presidential candidates openly endorse the doctrine of 'preemptive' war, Ron Paul has been a principled and vocal opponent of aggressive violence throughout his tenure in Congress. In this 2002 interview with Bill Moyers (11-minute video), Dr. Paul discusses preemptive war and just-war theory, along with the false rationales for invading Iraq. For those of you who remain ambivalent about the bi-partisan acceptance of preemptive war, I urge you to consider the following points:
  1. By practicing preemptive war, the US government has squandered whatever moral authority it had in the eyes of the world. It's pure hypocrisy to commit aggressive violence while condemning the aggression of others.
  2. A world that accepts the doctrine of 'preemptive' war is a world destined for endless, open-ended conflict.
  3. If the American people condone such deadly power in the hands of the US government, what evidence is there that the political class can be relied upon to wield that power judiciously? In the months before the invasion of Iraq, many congressmen willingly repeated the administration's propaganda for war, while making no effort to include contrarian authorities in congressional committee deliberations. As for those who knew better or harbored doubts, only a few raised their voices while others remained silent. No one should be trusted with the power to wage aggressive war, and such common sense was only validated by the craven, dishonest performance of Congress prior to the invasion of Iraq.
  4. In a nuclear age preceded by a century of heretofore unimagined carnage wrought by unscrupulous politicians, I, for one, am aghast that such an evil doctrine is even considered debatable by many of my countrymen.
Stop the madness. Support Ron Paul.

Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Sunday, June 24, 2007

Saturday, June 23, 2007

4. Ron Paul's record during the march to war in Iraq

In chronological order, the following list consists of addresses Dr. Paul delivered in the House of Representatives prior to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq:
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

3. Ron Paul's "Questions that won't be asked about Iraq"

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 28, 2007)

"It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare."
– Mark Twain

"I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider
the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man."
– George Washington


On October 10 & 11, 2002, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iraq War Resolution. This resolution authorized "the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." With this act, Congress gave the president the power to wage war at his discretion, thereby relinquishing its Constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on a formal declaration of war.

Prior to this vote, most American media coverage uncritically echoed the Bush administration's casus belli -- most notably, that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), posed an imminent threat to the US, and was complicit in the attacks of 9/11. However, a few intrepid souls (including Iraq weapons inspectors and US intelligence veterans) challenged these assertions throughout the march to war. In a hostile environment rife with militant hysteria, these people patiently exposed the flaws and falsehoods in the government's propaganda.

Of the current field of presidential candidates who were in Congress at the time, only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Iraq War Resolution. As the administration's case for war unraveled, some of the other candidates attempted to exculpate their support of the resolution by invoking such excuses as the Bush administration 'fooled us all' and 'everyone believed that Hussein's regime had WMD.' As the record shows, such claims are patently false.

Adding his voice to the small chorus of dissenters, Ron Paul delivered a series of addresses in the House of Representatives in the months before the Iraq War Resolution. At a time when it was politically unpopular to do so, Dr. Paul persistently confronted and disputed the administration's case for war. Below, you will find the text of one such address, as well as links to each of the others. With these statements, Ron Paul exhibited undaunted honesty and integrity, perhaps the rarest of all virtues in our nation's capitol.


"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough,
we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us.
Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
- Carl Sagan


Questions that Won't be Asked on Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul on the floor of the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked -- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

    1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

    2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

    3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

    4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

    5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

    6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

    7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

    8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

    9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

    10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

    11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States - and who may again attack the United States - and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

    12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

    13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

    14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

    15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

    16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

    17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

    18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

    19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

    20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

    21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

    22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

    23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
    24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

    25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

    26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

    27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

    28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

    29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

    30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

    31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

    32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

    33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

    34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

    35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

2. Ron Paul speaks the truth

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 22, 2007)

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."
- Thomas Paine

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

"Patriotism lies not in blind obedience to authority, but in the desire to search for the truth."
- Ramman Kenoun


Letter to the Editor of Antiwar.com by Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, Mr. Scheuer is author of Imperial Hubris and Through Our Enemies' Eyes.
"Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter."

"These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Mr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies ..."

"The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America’s defeat only if Mr. Paul’s frank statements are ignored."
Ron Paul Said It by Llewellyn Rockwell
Mr. Rockwell is the founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
"Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate. Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.

So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth."
Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D.
A retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Kwiatkowski is reknowned for her courage in exposing the corrupt military-intelligence campaign prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in the possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power."

"Ron Paul is speaking truth to the whole world, with patience and patriotism flowing in equally generous portions."

"But far more than that, I am pleased to be humbled by each new day of the Ron Paul campaign – to witness the raw power of ideas and debate – after such a long hiatus of ideas and debate from the American political game."
Mr. Horton is the host of Antiwar Radio.
"This is Giuliani's shining 'Reagan debate moment'? When he is completely wrong and the statement he's denouncing and the man making it are 100% right?"

"So you see, foreign occupation – American foreign policy – is a 'major contributing factor' in creating terrorism today, just as it was in the years before September 11th."
Giuliani's Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat by Jacob Hornberger, B.A., J.D.
Mr. Hornberger is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
"As Ron Paul emphasized in last night’s debate, imagine if some foreign power — such as China — had done these types of things to the United States. Wouldn’t Americans experience anger and rage?"

"What Ron Paul’s participation in the 2008 presidential race is accomplishing is this: It is making people such as Rudy Giuliani think about things they’ve never thought about before and causing them to view the U.S. government and its long-time paradigm of empire and interventionism in an entirely different way. It’s also why he is engendering considerable discomfort among people who have long believed that the federal government is a deity whose foreign policies are beyond reproach."
On the Lighter Side (cartoon clip from 'The Family Guy')
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

1. Support Ron Paul

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 18, 2007)

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because
it comprises and develops the germ of every other."
– James Madison in 1795

" I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq
and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who
are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war."
– Dr. Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, September 18 2002



Everyone,

In Tuesday night's Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul was predictably alone in making the point that Washington's interventionist foreign policy has long induced widespread antipathy for the US abroad. He urged Americans to make an honest effort to understand the causal link between provocative US policies and the anger that prompts some terrorists to commit such horrific acts as the 9/11 attacks. By ignoring these connections and persisting with such policies, the US government needlessly imperils the American people in the future.

In a remarkable display of either willful ignorance or blatant demagoguery, Rudy Giuliani responded indignantly to Ron Paul's factual observation that US policies motivated the 9/11 hijackers, and he demanded that Dr. Paul retract his statements. To his everlasting credit, Dr. Paul did not.

Mr. Giuliani and other self-appointed thought police would do well to bear the following points in mind:
  1. To state that Islamic terrorists are motivated by both ideology and US interventionism is not a faulty or illogical position. On the contrary, there's abundant evidence for both as motivating factors, and the influence of these factors varies between individual terrorists. Al Qaeda is no exception, and their pre-9/11 statements plainly outlined their grievances with American foreign policy. Since 9/11, countless books, documentaries, and analyses (including the government's own 9/11 Commission Report) have detailed this history. While some media outlets have shamelessly portrayed Ron Paul's comments as somehow scandalous, the real scandal is that the other candidates uniformly ignore the role of US policies.

  2. There is no contradiction between an honest attempt to understand the motivating factors for terrorism and a condemnation of terrorist tactics. But in the lexicon of Giuliani and his fellow travelers, the former constitutes "blaming America" for 9/11. As Tom Woods recently wrote, "I guess detectives should bear that in mind the next time they seek the motive behind a murder. 'You’re looking for motive? Are you saying the dead man had it coming?'"
For the record, Dr. Paul has always supported focused efforts to pursue Al Qaeda operatives and bring them to justice, and he's one of the few members of Congress who have opposed US alliances with Islamic fundamentalists throughout his career.

The American people should know what the US government does abroad in our name, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who gives us the unvarnished truth. With respect to the motives of the 9/11 hijackers, Dr. Paul cited the US bombings of Iraq prior to 2001 in Tuesday's debate. However, Dr. Paul could also have mentioned other practices that he has steadfastly opposed throughout his career, including:
  • The Bush-Clinton embargo of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of over one million Iraqis, including more than 300,000 children.

  • US financial and military support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East -- a roster of recipients that includes Saudi Arabia, Musharraf's Pakistan, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

  • The prolonged US military presence on the Arabian peninsula, which is viewed by Muslims as an unjust occupation of holy land.
In recent years, Ron Paul opposed the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and the government's assault on habeus corpus, while persistently pointing out the inherent dangers and false rationales of each. While this record alone sets him apart from the field, Dr. Paul is further distinguished by his long-standing call for a return to America's traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism and independence. Ron Paul is the only major party candidate who has consistently challenged the prevailing bi-partisan foreign policy of global interventionism that not only fosters widespread resentment of the US, but also impoverishes future generations of Americans while habitually involving US troops in perilous situations that have nothing to do with national defense.

As other presidential candidates mouth expected platitudes and compete for the title of "Best Monday Morning Quarterback" in Iraq, Ron Paul focuses on the ill-conceived policies that make such debacles possible in the first place -- for example:

  • Congress' 60-year abnegation of its vital constitutional responsibility to vote on a declaration of war prior to military operations.

  • The pervasive influence of special interests on American foreign policy -- interests that place primacy on their own financial and ideological agendas, rather than the defense and security of the American people.

  • Chronic US meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, including such covert operations as the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup to install the Shah of Iran, US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the present-day proxy war in Somalia.

  • The presence of US military personnel in over 140 countries (including the construction of 14 permanent bases in Iraq, a development that Dr. Paul raised in the debate)

As exemplified by Giuliani's high-handed behavior, establishment politicians and their media enablers adhere to a self-imposed speech code that forbids open discussion of our disastrous foreign policy. But so long as that policy persists, it's only a matter of time before the next Vietnam or Iraq.

Ron Paul is a decent and honorable man who has always spoken truth to power. He deserves our support.

For more information, go to www.ronpaul2008.com and www.house.gov/paul/.

In Peace, Liberty, and Good Will,

Scott ...


PS - Since the mainstream media ignores Ron Paul or treats his candidacy with a dismissive sniff, the Internet remains the primary resource for people who wish to learn more about his record. In coming months, I will e-mail Ron Paul news and views to this distribution list. If you're not interested, feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to hit your Delete button, or let me know and I'll gladly remove you from the list. :-)
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

Ron Paul Interviews

Interviews with Dr. Ron Paul:
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

Debate Appearances

Video of Ron Paul's comments in each presidential debate:
June 5, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire

May 15, 2007 - Columbia, South Carolina

May 3, 2007 - Simi, California
Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Saturday, June 23, 2007

Friday, June 1, 2007

The candidates on foreign policy

Note: This page is a work in progress.

Dr. Ron Paul

"Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys, and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence.
Nothing could be further from the truth."
– Dr. Ron Paul, US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, April 21, 1999

"When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world. But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well."
– Dr. Ron Paul, US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, April 21, 1999

"The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefit to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily."
– Dr. Ron Paul, A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, September 9, 2002

"I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war."
– Dr. Ron Paul, War is a Political Mistake, September 18, 2002

"Already, the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had."
– Dr. Ron Paul, Iran: The Next Neo-Con Target, April 7, 2006

"(K)eeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops ... It's disconcerting that those of us who never believed the justifications given for our
invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops!"
– Dr. Ron Paul, Support the Troops by Ending the War, February 1, 2007

"I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002, and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial 'Iraq regime change' legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay."
– Dr. Ron Paul, Bring Our Troops Home Now, July 12, 2007

See also Ron Paul on foreign policy during the Clinton years.


Barack Obama

"Never has it been more important for America to lead wisely, to shrewdly project power and wield influence ... In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals."
– Barack Obama, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, July 4, 2004
(see Barack Obama on Foreign Policy)

"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."
– Barack Obama, July 27, 2004 (see Meet Barack Obama by Eric Ruder)

"(T)he US should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran."
– Barack Obama, September 25, 2004 (see Barack Obama and the Clash of Civilizations by David Peterson)

"After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the US military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"
– Barack Obama, November 22, 2005 (see O-Bomb-A and the War Party by Justin Raimondo)

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan ..."
– Barack Obama, August 1, 2007 (see Obama as the New Kennedy: And Not in a Good Way …, by Justin Raimondo)

"(Obama's foreign policy) delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly: 'His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.… To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.'"
– Ira Chernus, Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq, July 22, 2007


Hillary Clinton

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."
– Hillary Clinton, Floor speech on S.J. Res 45, October 10, 2002

"We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required and promote our values."
– Hillary Clinton, January 22, 2007 (see Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq by Ira Chernus)

"As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table."
– Hillary Clinton, February 14, 2007 (see MoveOn Whitewashes Hillary’s Iran Belligerence by Norman Solomon)


John Edwards

"(Congress) should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed
by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
– John Edwards, Senator Edwards says Congress must be clear on Iraq, September 19, 2002

"Saddam needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution."
– John Edwards, Vice-Presidential Debate Transcript, October 5, 2004

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table.
Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
– John Edwards, January 22, 2007 (see The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War by George LaKoff)

Posted by Scott G. Sutton, MA, MCP, CMFC at Friday, June 01, 2007
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)