March 30th, 2006
<br />
A Tribute to the Late Harry Browne<br />
Mr. Speaker, America lost a great champion of liberty when Harry Browne passed away on March 1, at the age of 72. Harry had a passion for liberty and knowledge of a wide variety of subjects. His communication style, as he himself so marvelously put it, focused on converting his opponents rather than winning the argument. These attributes helped make him one of the most effective proponents of the freedom philosophy I have had the privilege of knowing. Harry’s numerous books and columns, his radio and internet broadcasts, and his speeches educated millions in sound economics and the benefits of a free society. Harry motivated many people to become activists in the movement to restore American liberties.
Harry first came to public attention in the 1970 when he penned a best-selling investment book, How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation , which foresaw President Richard Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard and the ways the American economy would be damaged by the inevitable resulting inflation. Harry’s book helped many Americans survive, and even profit, during the economic troubles of the seventies. It also introduced millions of people to the insights developed by followers of the Austrian school of economics regarding the dangers fiat currency poses to both prosperity and liberty posed by fiat. How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation is generally recognized as the founding document of the hard money movement, which combined the insights of the Austrian economists with a practical investment strategy.
Harry’s third book, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisi s, reached number one on the New York Times bestseller list. Other popular books by Harry include How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World , The Great Libertarian Offer, and Why Government Doesn’t Work. I was pleased to write the foreword for one of Harry’s books, Liberty A-Z: Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now , a collection of direct, thought-provoking, and often humorous responses to the questions advocates of the freedom philosophy face.
During the nineties, Harry worked to advance liberty as a presidential candidate, columnist, and radio talk-show host. He also hosted an internet-based talk show and founded DownsizeDC, a grassroots advocacy group whose goals are accurately summed up in its title. Even while struggling with Lou Gehrig’s disease, Harry maintained a full schedule of writing, hosting his radio show, and speaking around the country.
Harry’s efforts were not limited to the economic realm. He understood the threat to liberty and prosperity posed by global crusades for democracy, as well as the importance of opposing restrictions on civil liberties. Harry’s outspoken defense of civil liberties and the Framers’ foreign policy of nonintervention took on added importance in the last years of his life. Unlike many self-styled advocates of liberty, Harry Browne never attempted to curry favor with the political establishment by focusing solely on issues of economic liberty. He never combined advocacy of low taxes and regulations with active support for militarism and restrictions on personal liberty.
In all his educational, financial, and political work Harry served as a model for everyone who works for the free society. Harry was principled and uncompromising in message, while temperate and respectful of differing opinions in delivery. He avoided the histrionics too common in our today’s talk show culture, and he never personalized his arguments. Even when an opponent resorted to ad hominem attacks, Harry always kept his presentation on the high ground of ideas and principles. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I extend my sympathy to Harry Browne’s wife, Pamela, and daughter Autumn, as well as the many he befriend in his years in the freedom movement. I pay tribute to Harry Browne for his lifelong efforts on behalf of individual liberty.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 29th, 2006
<br />
Statement on the “Academic Bill of Rights”<br />
Mr. Speaker, anyone needing proof that federal funding leads to federal control should examine HR 609, the “College Access and Opportunity Act.” HR 609 imposes several new federal mandates on colleges, and extends numerous existing mandates. HR 609 proves the prophetic soundness of warnings that federal higher education programs would lead to federal control of higher education.
Opponents of increased federalization of higher education should be especially concerned about HR 609’s “Academic Bill of Rights.” This provision takes a step toward complete federal control of college curricula, grading, and teaching practices. While the provision is worded as a “sense of Congress,” the clear intent is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors’ lectures and lesson plans meet with federal approval.
The “Academic Bill of Rights” is a response to concerns that federally-funded institutions of higher learner are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of “political correctness” on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their particular views regardless of whether it benefits their students (who are, after all, the professors’ customers). Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use problems created by previous interventions in the market to justify new interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of “political correctness” to justify more federal control over college classrooms.
Instead of fostering open dialogue and wide-raging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the “Academic Bill of Rights” will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects, in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the federal government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 1960s and 1970s in order to avoid running afoul of the federal “fairness doctrine.”
I am convinced some promoters of the “Academic Bill of Rights” would be perfectly happy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the “Academic Bill of Rights” and you will find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, HR 609 expands federal control over higher education; in particular through an “Academic Bill of Rights” which could further stifle debate and inquiry on America’s college campus. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 28th, 2006
<br />
Making the World Safe for Christianity<br />
The top Neo-Con of the twentieth century was Woodrow Wilson. His supposed idealism, symbolized in the slogan “Make the world safe for democracy,” resulted in untold destruction and death across the world for many decades. His deceit and manipulation of the pre-war intelligence from Europe dragged America into an unnecessary conflict that cost the world and us dearly. Without the disastrous Versailles Treaty, World War II could have been averted– and the rise to power of Communists around the world might have been halted.
We seem to never learn from our past mistakes. Today’s neo-cons are as idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East as the Wilsonian do-gooders. Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq War and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neo-cons are eager to expand their regime change policy to Iran by force.
The obvious shortcomings of our regime change and occupation of Afghanistan are now readily apparent. The Taliban was ousted from power, but they have regrouped and threaten the delicate stability that now exists in that country. Opium drug production is once again a major operation, with drugs lords controlling a huge area of the country outside Kabul. And now the real nature of the government we created has been revealed in the case of Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who faced a possible death sentence from the Karzai administration for converting to Christianity. Even now that Mr. Rahman is free due to western pressure, his life remains in danger.
Our bombs and guns haven’t changed the fact that the new puppet Afghan government still follows Sharia law.The same loyalty to Sharia exists in Iraq, where we’re trying so hard to stabilize things. And all this is done in the name of spreading democracy.
The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation, to countries like Jordan and Syria.Those Christians who have remained in Iraq fear for their lives every day. That should tell us something about the shortcomings of a policy that presumes to make the world safe for democracy.
The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It’s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we’re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force.
Pointing out the lack of success is taboo. It seems of little concern to many members of Congress that we lack both the moral right and constitutional authority to impose our will on other nations.
The toughest task is analyzing what we do from their perspective. We should try harder to place ourselves in the shoes of those who live in the Arab countries where our efforts currently are concentrated. We are outraged by a Muslim country that would even consider the death penalty for a Christian convert. But many Muslims see all that we do as a reflection of western Christianity, which to them includes Europe and America. They see everything in terms of religion.
When our bombs and sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, they see it as an attack on their religion by Christians. To them our actions represent a crusade to change their culture and their political systems. They do not see us as having noble intentions. Cynicism and realism tell them we’re involved in the Middle East to secure the oil we need.
Our occupation and influence in the holy lands of the Middle East will always be suspect. This includes all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Naively believing otherwise will guarantee continuing hostilities in Iraq. Our meddling will remain an incitement for radicals to strike us here at home in future terrorist attacks. All the intelligence gathering in the world will serve little purpose if we don’t come to understand exactly why they hate us– despite the good intentions that many Americans hold dear.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 14th, 2006
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas recently introduced the “Sunlight Rule,” which would radically change the way Washington does business– for the better. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Congressman Paul proposes to shine a bright light on the House of Representatives and restore integrity to that institution by putting an end to the outrageous practice of voting on huge spending bills that have not been read.
The Sunlight Rule changes the actual procedural practices of the U.S. House of Representatives. It requires all bills to be made available to members of Congress at least ten days before a vote. The Rule also allows ordinary citizens to publicly censure their Representative if he or she votes for a bill brought to the floor without the ten-day review period.
While it might amaze many Americans to know that members of Congress virtually never read the bills they pass, it’s a common practice. Many bills are thousands of pages long and contain thousands of spending earmarks. Since most bills are never read except by their actual authors– often staffers or even lobbyists, not the elected Representatives themselves– the opportunities for taxpayer abuse are enormous.
“Average Americans often wonder how so much pork-barrel spending happens in Washington, and why it can’t be stopped,” Paul stated. “One big reason is that most members of Congress have no idea what’s really in the bills they pass. The latest budget vote is a perfect example. We voted at 4 in the morning on a huge bill that wasn’t even finished until midnight. Nobody could have read it. It funded thousands of pet projects and earmarks. Is this any way to vote on a budget that spends 2.7 trillion dollars?”
“That’s why I introduced the Sunlight Rule, to let Congress actually read the bills they pass,” Paul concluded. “It’s the least they can do with your money.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 3rd, 2006
<br />
Statement on the “Sunlight Rule”<br />
Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the “Sunlight Rule.” This measure amends House rules to ensure members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. This is particularly a problem with the Appropriations committee conference reports, which are often rushed to the floor of the House in late-night sessions at the end of the year. For example, just this past December the House voted on the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations conference report at approximately four a.m.–just four hours after the report was filed. Yet the report contained language dealing with avian flu, including controversial language regarding immunity liability for vaccine manufacturers, that was added in the House-Senate conference on the bill. Considering legislation on important issues in this manner is a dereliction of our duty as the people’s elected representatives.
My proposed rule requires that no piece of legislation, including conference reports, can be brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to members and staff both in print and electronic versions for at least ten days. My bill also requires that a manager’s amendment making substantive changes to a bill be available in both printed and electronic forms at least 72 hours before a vote. While manager’s amendments usually are reserved for technical changes, oftentimes manager’s amendments contain substantive additions to bills in the form of pork. Members should be made aware of such changes before being asked to vote on a bill.
The Sunlight Rule provides the American people the opportunity to be involved in enforcing congressional rules by allowing citizens to move for censure of any Representative who votes for a bill brought to the floor in violation of this act. The Sunlight Rule can never be waived by the Rules committee or House leadership. If an attempt is made to bring a bill to the floor in violation of this rule, any member can raise a point of order requiring the bill to be immediately pulled from the House calendar.
Mr. Speaker, the practice of rushing bills to the floor before individual members have a chance to study them contributes to public distrust of Congress. Voting on bills before members read them makes a mockery of representative government and cheats voters who sent us here to make informed decisions on public policy. Adopting the Sunlight Rule is one of the most important changes to House rules this Congress could make to restore public trust and help preserve the integrity of this institution. I hope my colleagues will support this change to House rules.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 1st, 2006
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul has been recognized as a top advocate for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress for the ninth year in a row, earning the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union’s annual award as a “Taxpayers’ Friend” for 2005. Only 44 of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives earned similar honors last year.
Paul promises his constituents he will vote against tax increases, spending increases, and bloated budgets.
The annual NTU rating is based on critical congressional votes relating to federal tax, spending, and regulatory issues. Paul consistently ranks at or near the top of NTU’s scorecard in terms of his pro-taxpayer votes.
Overall, however, Congress is slipping when it comes to serving the least-represented special interest of all-American taxpayers.
“Deeds count for more than words in taming the growth of big government, which is why Congress’s 2005 fiscal ratings barely moved from their already-depressed levels,” said NTU President John Berthoud. “If politicians want to get their pro-taxpayer scores out of the cellar this year, they will have to follow through on promises to change Washington’s pork-barrel culture. Congressman Paul’s high NTU score indicates his commitment to reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts: