April 26th, 2005
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul has contacted Anthony Principi, Chairman of the president’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission, asking him to keep Naval Station Ingleside open. Paul plans to work closely with House leadership and BRAC administrators to ensure that a vital and strategic Navy facility is not closed for political reasons.
Naval Station Ingleside, located north of Corpus Christi, provides logistics and base support services to 41 Navy commands, including 21 ships. It employs 3,900 Navy and civilian personnel who specialize in mine warfare. It also supports the local economy in the surrounding coastal bend community. Many on those employed at Ingleside live in the 14 th congressional district.
Ingleside is located aside a vital ship channel, which connect the Port of Corpus Christi with the Gulf of Mexico. It is the only deep-water port on the Gulf, which makes Ingleside capable of docking virtually any Navy vessel– including aircraft carriers. The base is still quite new, having opened in 1990, and operates within federal environmental guidelines.
“Why are we building military bases in Iraq and Uzbekistan, and but closing them in Texas?” Paul asked. “Ingleside Naval Station has real strategic value as the only deep-water Navy base on the entire Gulf coast. It is a critical launching point for deep-water ships, and it’s vital to the defense of our nation’s southern shoreline. The number one priority for our military must be defending America, and decisions about base closures should reflect this. Let’s close bases in Japan and Germany, not Texas.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 14th, 2005
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul of Texas today introduced legislation that repeals a particularly onerous provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Paul’s legislation, titled “The Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act,” seeks to repair damage done to the economy by repealing section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley and restoring some measure of economic due process rights.
Paul, a member of the House Financial Services committee, termed the 404 provisions anti-business and anti-competitive. “It’s time to make public what the business community already acknowledges privately: Sarbanes-Oxley is a disaster,” Paul stated. “Now that the Enron and Worldcom hysteria is over, it’s time to admit that Congress made a terrible mistake.”
Journalist Robert Novak, in his column of April 7, said that, “[f]or more than a year, CEOs and CFOs have been telling me that 404 is a costly nightmare” and “ask nearly any business executive to name the biggest menace facing corporate America, and the answer is apt to be number 404…a dagger aimed at the heart of the economy.”
Sarbanes-Oxley dramatically raises the cost of doing business, which favors large companies over small competitors. These costs retard economic growth and hurt American workers. It also tramples due process rights by subjecting CEOs and CFOs to criminal penalties for inadvertent accounting errors. Not surprisingly, many American and foreign companies simply have deregistered from U.S. stock exchanges rather than spend millions in compliance costs. Financial analysts have identified section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures.
“Congress has zero credibility when it comes to fiscal accountability,” Paul concluded. “Just look at Fannie Mae and Social Security for two obvious examples. More importantly, Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate the accounting standards of private businesses. Every state in the nation has fraud laws on the books, and the market responded to Enron rumors well before Congress held any hearings on the matter. Once again, Congress has presumed to understand what it does not, and regulate what it has no authority to regulate.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 14th, 2005
<br />
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed into law in the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, by a Congress more concerned with doing something than doing the right thing. Today, American businesses, workers, and investors are suffering because Congress was so eager to appear “tough on corporate crime.” Sarbanes-Oxley imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry. These regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges. According to a study by the prestigious Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly tripled during the year after Sarbanes-Oxley became law, while the New York Stock Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004.
The reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on American stock exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs Sarbanes-Oxley imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Kron/Ferry International, Sarbanes-Oxley cost Fortune 500 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent.
Many of the major problems stem from section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial statements. It also requires that outside auditors “attest to” the soundness of the internal controls used in preparing the statements– an obvious sop to auditors and accounting firms. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board defines internal controls as “controls over all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.” According to John Berlau, a Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the definition of internal controls is so broad that a CEO possibly could be found liable for not using the latest version of Windows! Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures.
Journalist Robert Novak, in his column of April 7, said that, “[f]or more than a year, CEOs and CFOs have been telling me that 404 is a costly nightmare” and “ask nearly any business executive to name the biggest menace facing corporate America, and the answer is apt to be number 404…a dagger aimed at the heart of the economy.”
Compounding the damage done to the economy is the harm Sarbanes-Oxley does to constitutional liberties and due process. CEOs and CFOs can be held criminally liable, and subjected to 25 years in prison, for inadvertent errors. Laws criminalizing honest mistakes done with no intent to defraud are more typical of police states than free societies. I hope those who consider themselves civil libertarians will recognize the danger of imprisoning citizens for inadvertent mistakes, put aside any prejudice against private businesses, and join my efforts to repeal Section 404.
The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions should be resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders, and by state and local regulations. Let me remind my colleagues who are skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud: the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter. My colleagues also should keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting financial crimes
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has raised the costs of doing business, thus causing foreign companies to withdraw from American markets and retarding economic growth. By criminalizing inadvertent mistakes and exceeding congressional authority, Section 404 also undermines the rule of law and individual liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 13th, 2005
Andrew Clayton, a senior at Giddings High School, has accepted a full appointment to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Congressman Ron Paul nominated Andrew for the Academy based on his excellent academic record and service to his school, church, and community. Andrew will be sworn in at the Academy on June 29, 2005, becoming an official member of the Class of 2009.
Andrew ranks in the top 10% of his graduating class academically, while maintaining a busy extracurricular schedule. He is a member of the debate team, and a trumpet section leader in the school band. He is active in the First Baptist Church, serving on the church usher committee and the youth committee. Andrew’s other activities include: UIL Extemporaneous Speaker; UIL one-act play; the BETA club; Leo club; and the Christ First club.
Andrew is the son of Timothy and Leslie Clayton of LaGrange.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 12th, 2005
Congressman Ron Paul’s new district office in Brazoria County is now open for business. Constituents needing help with federal agencies like the Social Security Administration, Veterans Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service are welcome to contact the office staff for assistance. The district office also provides constituents with an opportunity to meet Congressman Paul and discuss federal issues with him.
“I’m pleased to invite constituents from the eastern part of the 14 th congressional district to call or stop by our new office,” Paul stated. “Our goal in choosing Lake Jackson was to make constituent services available to people in Chambers, Galveston, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Matagorda, and Wharton counties. My veteran staff aims to provide the same top- notch service it always has. I look forward to meeting both new and existing constituents in Lake Jackson.”
122 West Way
Suite 301
Lake Jackson
(in the First National Bank building, by Jack in the Box)
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 6th, 2005
<br />
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo<br />
Clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri Schiavo. Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has emerged. This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract. It’s about an individual’s right to life and the value of life itself. Without concern for the life of each individual, liberty is meaningless and indefensible.
This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
Terri Schiavo is a unique case, and unfortunately her fate ended up in the hands of lawyers, judges, and the legislators. The media certainly did their part in disrupting her final days.
In a free society the doctor and the patient– or his or her designated spokesperson– make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it.
This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important. It is not an esoteric subject; it’s a real life involved and a personal issue we can’t ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with government now responsible for most of the medical bills.
We’re rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This has occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents.
Free-market medicine is not perfect, but it’s the best system to sort out these difficult problems– and it did so for years.
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate.In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I won’t hold my breath.
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case– because of federalism and separation of powers– on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.
It’s too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members.But perhaps this “flexibility” in administering the rule of law helps create problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.
First, all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing to use lethal force to satisfy the politicians’ notion of an unachievable fair society. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how well intentioned, can never be justified. It’s theft, plain and simple, and morally wrong. Actually, welfare is anti-prosperity; so it can’t be pro-life. Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that someone believes will result from the transfer program. They never ask who must pay, who must be threatened, who must be arrested and imprisoned. They never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible taxation could have helped someone in a private or voluntary way.
Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty. Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and more often than not does exactly the opposite.
My suggestion to my colleagues, who did argue convincingly that Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case, is please consider using these same arguments consistently and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes increases in welfare one is not pro-life. Being pro-liberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being pro-life, as well as pro-prosperity.
Conservatives on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life. There’s little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda even when it’s not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so. Take for instance the funding of faith-based charities. The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at the state level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not be the prerogative of the federal government.
The biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution.
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years. But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government– only the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.
A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life– witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty– witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace– witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia.
The accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer generation is treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of life concerns, we’re talking about $7 trillion in additional medical costs. Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions will vanish. National health care, of necessity, will always conflict with personal choices.
Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government ordered euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs. This is true whether it’s a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an emergency room visit for a broken toe. And in addition deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a paper money system.
Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. When dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of debating what was best for Terri.
Hopefully, this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 6th, 2005
<br />
Who’s Better Off?<br />
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?
The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change.In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.
How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.
Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?
Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed– not the other way around.
One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.
Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.
We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.
Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election– supposedly the real one– is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?
The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.
The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.
One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister– something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree– the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.
But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”
One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.
The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will– a de facto draft– are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.
The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.
Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.
Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?
Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.
The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft– which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.
The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.
One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.
This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.
These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.
We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.
A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers– not the warmongers.
We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.
We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world– and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.
In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches– not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.
Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 6th, 2005
<br />
Honoring Pope John Paul II<br />
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.
The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.
Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.
Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.
In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts: