The Beltway Conservative establishment has its hands full right now, not to mention pie on its face. It has to explain how Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at this year’s just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
It wasn’t even close. Paul got 31% of the vote, a 40% margin over runner-up Mitt Romney’s 22% of the vote. Romney was the Beltway Conservative candidate, and had won the last three CPAC straw polls. Paul and Romney were followed by a number of single-digit fringe candidates such as Sarah Palin (7%), Tim Pawlenty (6%), Newt Gingrich (4%), and Mike Huckabee (4%).
The official line is: This doesn’t mean anything, folks. Our straw poll isn’t scientific. The people who win our straw votes never win the presidency or the Republican nomination anyway, so don’t pay it any attention.
Funny. I voted for Ron Paul at CPAC and I didn’t see any notice on the ballot warning, "This poll is unscientific and stupid. But if you’re bored and still want to vote, here are your choices."
Sea Change at CPAC Mirrors Changes in the GOP and Nation
As the nation’s economic and fiscal stability deteriorates, voter priorities are changing.
In the nation at large, independents are the sexiest voters around. Both Republicans and Democrats are wooing them as if every day is Valentine’s Day. And all the polls show that the independents are "fiscal conservatives" who put economic issues above social issues.
In the GOP, the three big victors this year – in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – placed more emphasis on economic issues than social issues, and won by capturing the independent vote. Indeed, Scott Brown has become a Republican hero for capturing "Teddy Kennedy’s seat" and returning it to the people, and got a rousing welcome at CPAC. It doesn’t seem to matter that he’s soft on the social issues.
Even in Congress – the most backward part of the nation – who would have guessed two years ago, or even one year ago, that Rep. Ron Paul would have hundreds of cosponsors for his bill to audit the Fed?
So, too, are things changing at CPAC, the largest gathering of conservative activists each year. To be sure, the neoconned are still in control – witness the applause that greeted Dick Cheney at his surprise appearance, and the emphasis given to War Party rhetoric by most of the establishment speakers. But they are meeting more and more resistance, and Ron Paul’s victory in the presidential straw poll is only the most visible sign. Let’s look at some of the undercurrents.
First, a general observation. Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates conducts the straw poll each year, and they ask about a lot more than presidential choices. Some of the questions change from year to year, reflecting what’s in the headlines, but most questions are repeated each year, allowing us to measure trends. Only CPAC registrants are allowed to vote (your badge is checked). And the total straw polls cast this year was the highest in CPAC’s history – 2,395, up from 1,757 in 2009 and 1,558 in 2008. This no doubt reflects the "stimulus" effects of an Obama administration on the opposition.
You’ve seen this excuse from the neoconned spokesmen and media: "Ron Paul won because a majority of CPAC attendees were college students, and we know that’s his strength. But they don’t reflect the country as a whole."
The truth: The percentage of students declined this year, to 48% from 52% in 2009. And the percentage of registrants aged 18 to 25 also declined this year, to 54% from 57% in 2009. (The percentage of those under 18 stayed the same both years – 2%.) So the growth in Ron Paul’s popularity cannot be dismissed as merely a surge of college or young voters.
Young people are the future of our nation and our movement, blah blah blah, you’ve heard that endlessly from every politician in the land. So when do you start dumping on the young people? When you need an excuse for explaining away the Ron Paul phenomenon.
The pie got larger this year (more registrants), but CPAC demographics remained remarkably constant from 2009 to 2010. So the surge in support for Ron Paul cannot be explained with some sort of "takeover" conspiracy.
Mitt Romney’s fortunes at CPAC this year remained pretty much the same as last year. The neoconned establishment’s candidate got 20% of the vote last year, and actually increased his share this year to 22%. What happened was that Ron Paul gained at the expense of all the fringe candidates:
Paul Up 18% From 13% in 2009 to 31% in 2010
Palin Down 6% From 13% to 7%
Pawlenty Up 4%* From 2% to 6%
Gingrich Down 6% From 10% to 4%
Huckabee Down 3% From 7% to 4%
Undecided Down 3% From 9% to 6%
*Pawlenty’s political machine mounted a determined offensive at CPAC this year, which explains this gain. But they couldn’t fight the Ron Paul surge.
It’s now official – the race is between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Let’s get it on!
CPAC Attendees on the Issues
I mentioned at the beginning of this article that voter priorities are changing in the face of economic disaster. This is evident in the straw votes at CPAC.
Each year attendees are asked about their most important political goal, with three choices. I think there are problems with the wording of the three choices, but since that wording stays the same from year to year, we can measure trends. Those whose primary goal is to reduce the size and scope of government rose from 74% in 2009 to 80% this year. Promoting traditional values dropped from 15% to 9%. And guaranteeing American safety at home and abroad dropped from 10% to 7%.
Then they are given a list of more specific issues and asked which is most and second most important to them personally. Combining "most important" with "second most important," here are the results:
Reducing size of federal government Up 9% From 43% to 52%
Reducing government spending Up 9% From 24% to 33%
The war on terrorism Down 5% From 23% to 18%
Lowering taxes Down 4% From 22% to 18%
Doing away with abortion Down 5% From 15% to 10%
Stimulating the economy to create jobs No change 9% and 9%
Restoring honesty to government Down 2% From 8% to 6%
Protecting gun owners’ rights Down 1% From 7% to 6%
Illegal immigration Down 5% From 10% to 5%
Improving education No change 5% and 5%
Promoting traditional values Down 3% From 8% to 5%
The war in Iraq Down 2% From 5% to 3%
In addition, three issues were on the list this year but not last year:
Reforming Social Security 3%
Stopping gay marriage 1%
Reducing health care costs 1%
I doubt that CPAC conservatives have become more liberal, or libertarian, on social issues. What has changed are their political priorities. Addressing our economic and government spending crisis has come to the forefront, and that explains the Ron Paul surge within the ranks of CPAC. After all, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a consistent record of fighting for fiscal sanity in Washington, and now he is reaping the rewards.
Monday
GOVERNMENT STIMULUS, ONE YEAR LATER
Last week marked the one year anniversary of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, passing into law. While the debate over its success has been focused on whether or not it is stimulating the economy and on various questionable uses of funds, in my estimation this legislation is accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish – grow the government.
Those of us concerned about the ever increasing level of government debt gasped at the astonishing $787 billion cost estimates for this bill. True to form it has actually cost 10 percent more at $862 billion. We heard over and over that government could not sit around and do nothing while people lost their jobs and houses. The administration claimed that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus bill passed.
Now, a year later, the government estimates that unemployment is over 10 percent. The real number is closer to 20 percent. It appears that those promises were total fabrications in order to close the deal.
In any case, the American people know that more government spending obviously equals more government. If the goal was to strengthen the private sector, Congress would have allowed businesses and individuals to keep more of their own money through meaningful tax cuts. Outrageously, the administration claims that they did “cut taxes” by reducing withholding, and that they have stimulated the private economy by increasing the amount of money in every worker’s paycheck. What they fail to mention is they did not change the total amount of taxes due. This means that all that money not withheld from paychecks will add up to a big unpleasant surprise when returns are filed this year. Many tax preparers are already seeing shocked taxpayers having to come up with big checks to the government when they normally expect a refund. Stimulus, indeed!
The administration also claims that thousands of jobs have been created or saved by this massive spending bill, but these are just more government jobs, and counterproductive in the long run. Funding for the public sector necessarily comes at the expense of an overtaxed private economy. But, it makes sense that government would seek to expand its payroll since every new bureaucrat becomes a likely advocate for big government, when an increasing number of Americans are demanding the opposite. But the more the burden, the closer the government parasite comes to killing its host.
Rather than learning the lessons of the past year, the administration is moving full-speed ahead to do even more economic damage. With the stimulus bill set as a precedent and victory declared, another “jobs” bill is in the works. And, in order to address the unavoidable issues of our massive deficit, the administration has named a bi-partisan commission to find ways to decrease it. Tax increases on the middle class are notoriously back “on the table”, exposing that campaign promise as another instance of merely saying what the people wanted to hear. If the obvious solution to our spending problems was seriously put forth, that is, getting back to the constitutional limitations of government, I would be shocked. More likely, this will be a tactic to increase taxes and spending in a way that passes the political buck.
Those of us concerned about the ever increasing level of government debt gasped at the astonishing $787 billion cost estimates for this bill. True to form it has actually cost 10 percent more at $862 billion. We heard over and over that government could not sit around and do nothing while people lost their jobs and houses. The administration claimed that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus bill passed.
Now, a year later, the government estimates that unemployment is over 10 percent. The real number is closer to 20 percent. It appears that those promises were total fabrications in order to close the deal.
In any case, the American people know that more government spending obviously equals more government. If the goal was to strengthen the private sector, Congress would have allowed businesses and individuals to keep more of their own money through meaningful tax cuts. Outrageously, the administration claims that they did “cut taxes” by reducing withholding, and that they have stimulated the private economy by increasing the amount of money in every worker’s paycheck. What they fail to mention is they did not change the total amount of taxes due. This means that all that money not withheld from paychecks will add up to a big unpleasant surprise when returns are filed this year. Many tax preparers are already seeing shocked taxpayers having to come up with big checks to the government when they normally expect a refund. Stimulus, indeed!
The administration also claims that thousands of jobs have been created or saved by this massive spending bill, but these are just more government jobs, and counterproductive in the long run. Funding for the public sector necessarily comes at the expense of an overtaxed private economy. But, it makes sense that government would seek to expand its payroll since every new bureaucrat becomes a likely advocate for big government, when an increasing number of Americans are demanding the opposite. But the more the burden, the closer the government parasite comes to killing its host.
Rather than learning the lessons of the past year, the administration is moving full-speed ahead to do even more economic damage. With the stimulus bill set as a precedent and victory declared, another “jobs” bill is in the works. And, in order to address the unavoidable issues of our massive deficit, the administration has named a bi-partisan commission to find ways to decrease it. Tax increases on the middle class are notoriously back “on the table”, exposing that campaign promise as another instance of merely saying what the people wanted to hear. If the obvious solution to our spending problems was seriously put forth, that is, getting back to the constitutional limitations of government, I would be shocked. More likely, this will be a tactic to increase taxes and spending in a way that passes the political buck.
Tuesday
ARE U.S. TAXPAYERS BAILING OUT GREECE?
Last week we were reminded that ours is not the only country suffering from severe economic turmoil. The Greek government is the latest to come close to default on their massive public debt. Greece has insufficient funds in their treasury to make even the minimum payments that are now coming due. Their debt level is about 120 percent of their gross domestic product and their public sector absorbs what amounts to 40 percent of GDP. Any talk of cutting costs and spending is met with violent protests from the many Greeks heavily dependent on government payments. Mounting fears of default have sent shockwaves through their creditors and all of the eurozone countries.
But there have been statements made by the European Central Bank to calm fears and give assurances that Greece will get the aid it needs. Details of agreements are not forthcoming.
Is it possible that our Federal Reserve has had some hand in bailing out Greece? The fact is, we don’t know, and current laws exempt agreements between the Fed and foreign central banks from disclosure or audit.
Greece is only the latest in a series of countries that have faced this type of crisis in recent memory. Not too long ago the same types of fears were mounting about Dubai, and before that, Iceland. Several other countries (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Latvia) are approaching crisis levels with public debt as well. Many have strong ties to Goldman Sachs and the case could easily be made that default could have serious implications for big US banking cartels. Considering the ties between the Fed and these big banks, it is not outlandish to wonder if the US taxpayer is secretly bailing out the entire world, country by country, even as our real unemployment tops 20 percent. Unless laws are changed to allow a complete and meaningful audit of the Federal Reserve, including its agreements with foreign central banks, we might never know if this is occurring or not.
This global financial crisis is a predictable result of secretive central banking and unsound fiat currency. Governments are entirely committed to this system of fiat money and fractional reserve banking for obvious reasons: it enables them to do what they love most, namely, spend hoards of money with near impunity. Without the limitations of sound money, governments will spend without limit. They will spend money to hire their cronies, pay off special interests, give out favors, create dependence and generally distract from the terrible job they do at their chief mandate, which is to protect the liberties of the people. Fiat money is a blank check to government, which is very dangerous, and we are witnessing the death throes of the system as the bills come due and the underlying capital is squandered away.
Because of our globe-straddling empire and lingering reserve currency status, perhaps no one has a more vested interest in keeping this system cobbled together than our own government and the Federal Reserve. The agreements that Iceland and Dubai and Greece have negotiated can amount to little more than kicking the can down the road, as their overall spending habits remain largely intact, fiat currencies are still legal tender and more debt is issued on top of unsustainable debt. The American people have the right to know if they are going to be the ones holding the bag in the end because the Federal Reserve secretly put them on the hook for it. This knowledge would be a key factor in peacefully dismantling this immoral and unconstitutional system.
But there have been statements made by the European Central Bank to calm fears and give assurances that Greece will get the aid it needs. Details of agreements are not forthcoming.
Is it possible that our Federal Reserve has had some hand in bailing out Greece? The fact is, we don’t know, and current laws exempt agreements between the Fed and foreign central banks from disclosure or audit.
Greece is only the latest in a series of countries that have faced this type of crisis in recent memory. Not too long ago the same types of fears were mounting about Dubai, and before that, Iceland. Several other countries (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Latvia) are approaching crisis levels with public debt as well. Many have strong ties to Goldman Sachs and the case could easily be made that default could have serious implications for big US banking cartels. Considering the ties between the Fed and these big banks, it is not outlandish to wonder if the US taxpayer is secretly bailing out the entire world, country by country, even as our real unemployment tops 20 percent. Unless laws are changed to allow a complete and meaningful audit of the Federal Reserve, including its agreements with foreign central banks, we might never know if this is occurring or not.
This global financial crisis is a predictable result of secretive central banking and unsound fiat currency. Governments are entirely committed to this system of fiat money and fractional reserve banking for obvious reasons: it enables them to do what they love most, namely, spend hoards of money with near impunity. Without the limitations of sound money, governments will spend without limit. They will spend money to hire their cronies, pay off special interests, give out favors, create dependence and generally distract from the terrible job they do at their chief mandate, which is to protect the liberties of the people. Fiat money is a blank check to government, which is very dangerous, and we are witnessing the death throes of the system as the bills come due and the underlying capital is squandered away.
Because of our globe-straddling empire and lingering reserve currency status, perhaps no one has a more vested interest in keeping this system cobbled together than our own government and the Federal Reserve. The agreements that Iceland and Dubai and Greece have negotiated can amount to little more than kicking the can down the road, as their overall spending habits remain largely intact, fiat currencies are still legal tender and more debt is issued on top of unsustainable debt. The American people have the right to know if they are going to be the ones holding the bag in the end because the Federal Reserve secretly put them on the hook for it. This knowledge would be a key factor in peacefully dismantling this immoral and unconstitutional system.
MORE SPENDING IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER
Last week, the House approved another increase in the national debt ceiling. This means the government can borrow $1.9 trillion more to stay afloat and avoid default. It has been little more than a year since the last debt limit increase, and graphs showing the debt limit over time show a steep, almost vertical trend. It is not likely to be very long before this new ceiling is met and the government is back on the brink between default and borrowing us further into oblivion. Congressional leaders and the administration acknowledge that the debt limit will need to be increased again next year. They are crossing their fingers that the forecasts are correct and they will not need another increase sooner, even before the 2010 midterm elections.
Continually increasing the debt is one of the logical outcomes of Keynesianism, since more government spending is always their answer. It is claimed that government must not stop spending when the economy is so fragile. Government must act. Yet, when times are good, government also increases in size and scope, because we can afford it, it is claimed. There is never a good time to rein in government spending according to Keynesian economists and the proponents of big government.
Free market Austrian economists on the other hand know that times are bad because of the size and scope of government. The economy is fragile because of the overwhelming stranglehold of bureaucracy and taxation of Washington. Any jobs Washington might create through these endless spending programs are paid for through more taxation and debt put on the productive sectors of the economy. Just as insidious is the hidden tax of inflation caused by the Fed and its ever-expanding credit bubble. When the Fed steps in with its solutions, it only devalues the dollars in everyone’s pocket while encouraging more reckless waste on Wall Street. All of this leads to a worsening economy, not an improved one.
And so the downward spiral continues. The worse things get, the more politicians want to spend. The more they spend, the heavier the debt load becomes and the more we have to spend just to maintain our interest payments. As our debt load becomes unsustainable, the alarm of our creditors increases. It is becoming so serious that our credit rating, as a nation, could be downgraded. If this happens, interest on the national debt will increase even more, leading to even higher taxes on Americans and inevitably, price inflation.
Still, Washington is full of talk of more regulation, more taxation and more spending. The Senate is still struggling to pass a massive regulatory increase on the financial sector, even as the stock market suffers more shockwaves. Pay-as-you-go rules give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, but in truth these rules are only used as a justification to raise taxes. Spending programs like healthcare reform, increased military spending, and a recent doubling of destructive foreign aid are viewed by Washington as necessary and reasonable, instead of foolishness we absolutely cannot afford.
The people understand this, which is why there is so much anger directed at politicians. Washington needs to change its thinking and adopt some common sense priorities. The Constitution gives some excellent limitations that would get us back on the right path if we would simply abide by them. The framers of the Constitution understood that only the ingenuity of the American people, free from government interference, could get us through hard times, yet Washington seems bent only on prolonging the agony.
Continually increasing the debt is one of the logical outcomes of Keynesianism, since more government spending is always their answer. It is claimed that government must not stop spending when the economy is so fragile. Government must act. Yet, when times are good, government also increases in size and scope, because we can afford it, it is claimed. There is never a good time to rein in government spending according to Keynesian economists and the proponents of big government.
Free market Austrian economists on the other hand know that times are bad because of the size and scope of government. The economy is fragile because of the overwhelming stranglehold of bureaucracy and taxation of Washington. Any jobs Washington might create through these endless spending programs are paid for through more taxation and debt put on the productive sectors of the economy. Just as insidious is the hidden tax of inflation caused by the Fed and its ever-expanding credit bubble. When the Fed steps in with its solutions, it only devalues the dollars in everyone’s pocket while encouraging more reckless waste on Wall Street. All of this leads to a worsening economy, not an improved one.
And so the downward spiral continues. The worse things get, the more politicians want to spend. The more they spend, the heavier the debt load becomes and the more we have to spend just to maintain our interest payments. As our debt load becomes unsustainable, the alarm of our creditors increases. It is becoming so serious that our credit rating, as a nation, could be downgraded. If this happens, interest on the national debt will increase even more, leading to even higher taxes on Americans and inevitably, price inflation.
Still, Washington is full of talk of more regulation, more taxation and more spending. The Senate is still struggling to pass a massive regulatory increase on the financial sector, even as the stock market suffers more shockwaves. Pay-as-you-go rules give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, but in truth these rules are only used as a justification to raise taxes. Spending programs like healthcare reform, increased military spending, and a recent doubling of destructive foreign aid are viewed by Washington as necessary and reasonable, instead of foolishness we absolutely cannot afford.
The people understand this, which is why there is so much anger directed at politicians. Washington needs to change its thinking and adopt some common sense priorities. The Constitution gives some excellent limitations that would get us back on the right path if we would simply abide by them. The framers of the Constitution understood that only the ingenuity of the American people, free from government interference, could get us through hard times, yet Washington seems bent only on prolonging the agony.
Saturday
STAY OUT OF YEMEN
Statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing: “Yemen on the Brink: Implications for U.S. Policy” February 3, 2010
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned over current US policy toward Yemen, which I believe will backfire and leave the United States less safe and much poorer. Increasing US involvement in Yemen may be sold as a fight against terrorism, but in fact it is more about expanding US government control and influence over this strategically-placed nation at the gateway to Asia.
The current administration, according to today’s testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, has dramatically increased foreign aid to Yemen, from $17 million in FY 2008 to $40 million in FY 2009, to $67 million for FY 2010, to, according to the president’s recent budget sent to Congress, $106 million for FY 2011. That represents an incredible six-fold increase in US aid to Yemen over just four years, at a time when the US economy continues to falter.
When I look at the US assistance plan for Yemen I see that it is primarily focused on nation-building. That is the failed idea that if the United States sends enough money to a foreign government, with which that government purchases US-manufactured weapons and hires US-based consultants and non-governmental organizations, that country will achieve a strong economy and political stability and in gratitude will become eternally friendly to the US and US interests. I have yet to see a single successful example of this strategy.
According to Assistant Secretary Feltman’s statement, “Priorities for U.S. assistance include political and fiscal reforms and meaningful attention to legitimate internal grievances; better governance through decentralization, reduced corruption and civil service reform; human rights protections; jobs-related training; economic diversification to generate employment and enhance livelihoods, and strengthened natural resource management.” How can we believe that the US government can achieve abroad what we know it cannot effectively achieve at home? We are going to spend millions of dollars to help create jobs in Yemen as we continue to shed jobs in the United States?
Yemen is a country mired in civil conflict. The Shi’ites in the north, who make up a significant percentage of the country’s total population and a majority in their region, have been fighting against what they see as the discriminatory policies of the Sunni-based government in the capitol, Sana’a, for years. Yemenis in the south, who up until 1990 were a separate country, likewise oppose the central government and threaten to escalate this opposition. Added into this mix are elements of what are called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), some of whom are left over from the US-supported fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and others have been radicalized by their exposure to Wahhabi extremism in US-allied Saudi Arabia. Still others in AQAP are veterans of the insurgency against US occupation of Iraq. We cannot forget either those Yemenis who were held for years by the United States without charges at Guantanamo Bay. How many of those were innocent of terrorist actions or intent but became radicalized under such conditions?
Saudi Arabia’s concern over the Shi’ite unrest in north Yemen has led to unsubstantiated claims of Iranian involvement in an attempt to draw the US into a regional problem that has nothing to do with the United States. Saudi Arabia has struggled with unrest among its own Shi’ite population and is determined to prevent any spill-over. There are some here in the US who repeat false claims of Iranian involvement in the hope of expanding the US military presence in the area. Others in the United States irresponsibly call for a US pre-emptive war in Yemen. We should be clear on this: expanded US involvement in Yemen plays into the hands of bin Laden and his organization as has been made clear on many occasions. Luring the United States into a conflict in Yemen by falsely advertising it part of a war on terror will certainly radicalize the Yemeni population against the United States. It will weaken our over-extended military and it will further destroy our economy.
Similarly, the US-backed central government in Sana’a stands to gain by claiming its internal problems are part of a global crisis that requires US intervention. The central Yemeni government has much to gain by making its battles and its problems our battles and our problems. But that gain will come at the expense of US soldiers, US security, and the American economy. I wonder how long it will be before the US establishes a permanent base on the strategic territory of Yemen?
I hope, as we begin to debate the foreign affairs budget for next year, that we may yet change course from that of the last administration, where the failed policies of interventionism, militarism, and nation-building have left the United States in a diminished position in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned over current US policy toward Yemen, which I believe will backfire and leave the United States less safe and much poorer. Increasing US involvement in Yemen may be sold as a fight against terrorism, but in fact it is more about expanding US government control and influence over this strategically-placed nation at the gateway to Asia.
The current administration, according to today’s testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, has dramatically increased foreign aid to Yemen, from $17 million in FY 2008 to $40 million in FY 2009, to $67 million for FY 2010, to, according to the president’s recent budget sent to Congress, $106 million for FY 2011. That represents an incredible six-fold increase in US aid to Yemen over just four years, at a time when the US economy continues to falter.
When I look at the US assistance plan for Yemen I see that it is primarily focused on nation-building. That is the failed idea that if the United States sends enough money to a foreign government, with which that government purchases US-manufactured weapons and hires US-based consultants and non-governmental organizations, that country will achieve a strong economy and political stability and in gratitude will become eternally friendly to the US and US interests. I have yet to see a single successful example of this strategy.
According to Assistant Secretary Feltman’s statement, “Priorities for U.S. assistance include political and fiscal reforms and meaningful attention to legitimate internal grievances; better governance through decentralization, reduced corruption and civil service reform; human rights protections; jobs-related training; economic diversification to generate employment and enhance livelihoods, and strengthened natural resource management.” How can we believe that the US government can achieve abroad what we know it cannot effectively achieve at home? We are going to spend millions of dollars to help create jobs in Yemen as we continue to shed jobs in the United States?
Yemen is a country mired in civil conflict. The Shi’ites in the north, who make up a significant percentage of the country’s total population and a majority in their region, have been fighting against what they see as the discriminatory policies of the Sunni-based government in the capitol, Sana’a, for years. Yemenis in the south, who up until 1990 were a separate country, likewise oppose the central government and threaten to escalate this opposition. Added into this mix are elements of what are called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), some of whom are left over from the US-supported fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and others have been radicalized by their exposure to Wahhabi extremism in US-allied Saudi Arabia. Still others in AQAP are veterans of the insurgency against US occupation of Iraq. We cannot forget either those Yemenis who were held for years by the United States without charges at Guantanamo Bay. How many of those were innocent of terrorist actions or intent but became radicalized under such conditions?
Saudi Arabia’s concern over the Shi’ite unrest in north Yemen has led to unsubstantiated claims of Iranian involvement in an attempt to draw the US into a regional problem that has nothing to do with the United States. Saudi Arabia has struggled with unrest among its own Shi’ite population and is determined to prevent any spill-over. There are some here in the US who repeat false claims of Iranian involvement in the hope of expanding the US military presence in the area. Others in the United States irresponsibly call for a US pre-emptive war in Yemen. We should be clear on this: expanded US involvement in Yemen plays into the hands of bin Laden and his organization as has been made clear on many occasions. Luring the United States into a conflict in Yemen by falsely advertising it part of a war on terror will certainly radicalize the Yemeni population against the United States. It will weaken our over-extended military and it will further destroy our economy.
Similarly, the US-backed central government in Sana’a stands to gain by claiming its internal problems are part of a global crisis that requires US intervention. The central Yemeni government has much to gain by making its battles and its problems our battles and our problems. But that gain will come at the expense of US soldiers, US security, and the American economy. I wonder how long it will be before the US establishes a permanent base on the strategic territory of Yemen?
I hope, as we begin to debate the foreign affairs budget for next year, that we may yet change course from that of the last administration, where the failed policies of interventionism, militarism, and nation-building have left the United States in a diminished position in the world.
FROM THE NATIONAL JOURNAL
NJ: Judging from how the Tea Party movement has grown, has the Ron Paul revolution been a success?
Paul: I’m not sure they’re absolutely related. A lot of people would say the Ron Paul revolution has been very successful, but in the very early stages, because we have a long way to go to reverse the trends of this country. But as far as getting the attention of a large number of people, I think that’s been done.
The Tea Party movement has expanded, it includes more people, and it’s not precisely a Ron Paul party movement. So they’re not directly related, but I would say that both have gotten the attention of the American people. Whether it’s the people who go to Tea Parties or the people who go to our rallies, all of us are pretty upset with what we see in Washington.
NJ: What stirred the activists’ fervor now?
Paul: I think it’s the failure of government. People are recognizing that government…. made promises, and yet now people are recognizing that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know about the debt, they know about the entitlements that can’t be paid. They know about the problems that we have around the world, they know about the corruption dealing with Goldman Sachs and others.
NJ: Can the Tea Parties continue to gain steam nationally while maintaining energy at the local level?
Paul: I’m not sure I could separate the two. If it’s a national organization, it’s usually the local people who have to do it. It’s independently organized, and there’s no one person or one group that controls them all, because they’re spontaneous. It reminds me a little bit of how our meet-up groups were formed in the campaign…. It wasn’t like the campaign went out and found people to start a meet-up group. They just spontaneously started meeting, and for the same goal. And I think the Tea Party movement is somewhat similar to that.
NJ: How will Republicans like Michele Bachmann or Mike Pence leverage their connection to the movement? Is it a useful tactic for establishment candidates to try to use some of that energy?
Paul: It’s very useful for somebody like Mike Pence or Michele to make use of the Tea Party movement. They’re smart enough to understand that there’s a lot of unhappiness, and they want to capture that…. They’re doing what is wise politically, but that doesn’t mean that they endorse what the Tea Party people believe….
When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, some of the conservatives who are getting involved in the Tea Party movement really don’t want to hear about that. For instance, the majority of the American people now are pretty tired of the fruitlessness of the war on drugs. And yet that’s still not accepted by mainstream, status quo politicians, especially if you’re on the conservative right.
NJ: You said the Tea Party movement isn’t likely to revive the Republican Party. But clearly it’s learning some lessons from the Tea Party. What should it take away?
Paul: The Tea Party movement can affect the Republican Party. But it can affect the Democratic Party as well, because politicians in Washington are politicians. And they are responding. I think they already have from the election in Massachusetts; even though that’s not a classical Tea Party candidate, it was people who were unhappy with the status quo….
But I don’t foresee that all of a sudden the Tea Party movement will own the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party will acknowledge it and come over and try to be friends with the Tea Party people, and that association will have to be worked out.
NJ: The Tea Party has evolved largely through citizen groups. But you also have the Nashville convention coming up, where Sarah Palin will be a central figure. How do you feel about her role in sort this movement that often prides itself as leaderless?
Paul: The question of a leaderless movement, I think that’s hard to totally conceive of. I can see an amorphous movement, where there’s not one single person that owns the movement. But I think there’s always a leader.
To me, the real leadership has to come philosophically in what you believe in, and certain individuals represent those views. But when it’s a philosophic movement, it can be amorphous. It can be spread out. To me, it’s sort of like asking, “Who’s the leader of the Keynesian economic philosophy?” Everybody’s a Keynesian in Washington because they believe in government intervention in the economy, but there’s no one single leader.
Monday
SPENDING FREEZE NOT LIKELY
Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.
First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.
The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.
Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.
The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.
I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country - I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.
First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.
The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.
Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.
The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.
I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country - I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.
WHAT I THINK..........LAURENCE VANCE
The right-to-life movement is a failure. Although millions of dollars have been spent on lobbying, marches, and protests since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, millions of women have still had abortions since then. There is no doubt that many abortions have been prevented, but even a round number of how many is almost impossible to estimate. The pro-life movement has failed miserably to persuade women to not have abortions, to educate women on the evils of abortion, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to convince doctors to not perform abortions, to effectively counsel women with unwanted pregnancies, to impede promiscuity, and to provide sufficient alternatives to pregnant women considering abortion.
Pro-lifers are quick to lay the blame on the Supreme Court, activist federal judges, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, feminists, doctors who perform abortions, the Democratic Party, and liberals – anywhere and anyone but themselves and the women who actually have abortions.
According to most pro-lifers, the solution to the abortion problem is not persuasion, education, or counseling; it is more centralization of power in the federal government – the same government that, in a vast power grab that did violence to the Constitution, asserted federal supremacy over the states’ abortion laws in the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a strange turn of events, instead of some libertarians thinking Ron Paul is wrong on abortion, some in the right-to-life movement have recently questioned the pro-life credentials of the strongly pro-life member of Congress, obstetrician, and former presidential candidate.
Dr. Paul, who has delivered over 4,000 babies, counseled young women against having abortions, written two books against abortion (Abortion and Liberty and Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue), and stated that "in 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman," has said about abortion and the right to life:
I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.
Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.
But not only has Dr. Paul claimed to be pro-life and made some negative statements about abortion, he has, as a member of Congress, actually tried to do something about abortion within the bounds of the Constitution he took an oath to uphold:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
None of Dr. Paul’s statements against abortion or actions to reduce abortion is good enough for some pro-lifers. One of the newest pro-life organizations, American Right To Life, has launched a vicious attack on Dr. Paul because he opposes both a federal law proscribing abortion and a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
As he himself explains his position:
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
For this Dr. Paul is said to be "pro-choice" and lumped in with pseudo-pro-lifers like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush. Additionally, whoever created Dr. Paul’s "pro-life profile" shows a profound ignorance of libertarianism, the Constitution, and the federal government.
Dr. Paul’s first step in eradicating the plague of abortion from America is a simple one: remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, as the Constitution allows in Article III. This would take only a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress. The self-proclaimed pro-lifers in Congress had their best chance to do this just a few years ago and blew it. Most Republicans in Congress claim to be pro-life; some Democrats in Congress claim to be pro-life. Between the two parties enough votes could have been obtained to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress – the period from January 20, 2001, to June 5, 2001, and again from January 3, 2003, to January 2, 2007.
After jurisdiction over abortion is returned to the states, pro-lifers can then begin a state-by-state campaign to criminalize abortion. Not only is this strategy much more practical, they would be much more successful in their efforts this way. Authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. Unfortunately, however, Congress has federalized a host of ordinary street crimes already covered by state criminal codes. The federal criminal code has over 4,000 separate federal offenses relating to actual crimes like arson and carjacking and spurious crimes like moving birds across state lines to engage in fights and interstate transport of unlicensed dentures. These federal laws should all be repealed. More federal criminal laws and more centralization of power in the federal government are the last things we need.
It’s not a question of "looking the other way while innocents are killed" or "passing the buck on the abortion question"; it is a question of the Constitution, the judicial system, federal power, the role of the federal government, our federal system of government, and the nature of our republic.
Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others. A candidate for office who claims to be pro-life can get a pass on just about anything else. Yet, someone can be pro-life and statist to the core, as many pro-lifers no doubt are. If Obama had a change of heart and began supporting the pro-life cause, he would still be a radical leftist unworthy of anyone’s vote or support. I submit to you that I would rather have someone in elective office who was indifferent to the abortion issue, yet was a strict constitutionalist and advocate of liberty and limited government, than the typical pro-life, red-state fascist.
To some pro-lifers it is not only the Constitution be damned, but national sovereignty be damned. In the American Right to Life smear of Ron Paul we read this incredible statement:
God gives no country, no state, no county, no city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion.
In the bizarro world of the American Right to Life, since they believe a person exists from the moment of conception, and since they consider a child in the womb just as much a person as Alan Keyes, the U. S. government would be justified in launching a worldwide crusade against abortion and invading every country that has legalized abortion – regardless of the legality of abortion in the United States.
Since the chance of the federal government or a significant number of state governments criminalizing abortion is a big, fat zero, only an appeal to religion or morality can truly stop abortion, not electing a Republican majority in Congress, not electing a Republican president so he can appoint more pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, not the federal judicial system, not amending the Constitution, not lobbying, not protests, not marches, and not by centralizing more power in Washington DC.
As Dr. Paul has well said:
A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.
Ron Paul is the most principled and consistent pro-life member of Congress. Shame on American Right to Life for its assault on Ron Paul and the Constitution.
Pro-lifers are quick to lay the blame on the Supreme Court, activist federal judges, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, feminists, doctors who perform abortions, the Democratic Party, and liberals – anywhere and anyone but themselves and the women who actually have abortions.
According to most pro-lifers, the solution to the abortion problem is not persuasion, education, or counseling; it is more centralization of power in the federal government – the same government that, in a vast power grab that did violence to the Constitution, asserted federal supremacy over the states’ abortion laws in the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a strange turn of events, instead of some libertarians thinking Ron Paul is wrong on abortion, some in the right-to-life movement have recently questioned the pro-life credentials of the strongly pro-life member of Congress, obstetrician, and former presidential candidate.
Dr. Paul, who has delivered over 4,000 babies, counseled young women against having abortions, written two books against abortion (Abortion and Liberty and Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue), and stated that "in 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman," has said about abortion and the right to life:
I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.
Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.
But not only has Dr. Paul claimed to be pro-life and made some negative statements about abortion, he has, as a member of Congress, actually tried to do something about abortion within the bounds of the Constitution he took an oath to uphold:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
None of Dr. Paul’s statements against abortion or actions to reduce abortion is good enough for some pro-lifers. One of the newest pro-life organizations, American Right To Life, has launched a vicious attack on Dr. Paul because he opposes both a federal law proscribing abortion and a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
As he himself explains his position:
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
For this Dr. Paul is said to be "pro-choice" and lumped in with pseudo-pro-lifers like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush. Additionally, whoever created Dr. Paul’s "pro-life profile" shows a profound ignorance of libertarianism, the Constitution, and the federal government.
Dr. Paul’s first step in eradicating the plague of abortion from America is a simple one: remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, as the Constitution allows in Article III. This would take only a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress. The self-proclaimed pro-lifers in Congress had their best chance to do this just a few years ago and blew it. Most Republicans in Congress claim to be pro-life; some Democrats in Congress claim to be pro-life. Between the two parties enough votes could have been obtained to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress – the period from January 20, 2001, to June 5, 2001, and again from January 3, 2003, to January 2, 2007.
After jurisdiction over abortion is returned to the states, pro-lifers can then begin a state-by-state campaign to criminalize abortion. Not only is this strategy much more practical, they would be much more successful in their efforts this way. Authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. Unfortunately, however, Congress has federalized a host of ordinary street crimes already covered by state criminal codes. The federal criminal code has over 4,000 separate federal offenses relating to actual crimes like arson and carjacking and spurious crimes like moving birds across state lines to engage in fights and interstate transport of unlicensed dentures. These federal laws should all be repealed. More federal criminal laws and more centralization of power in the federal government are the last things we need.
It’s not a question of "looking the other way while innocents are killed" or "passing the buck on the abortion question"; it is a question of the Constitution, the judicial system, federal power, the role of the federal government, our federal system of government, and the nature of our republic.
Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others. A candidate for office who claims to be pro-life can get a pass on just about anything else. Yet, someone can be pro-life and statist to the core, as many pro-lifers no doubt are. If Obama had a change of heart and began supporting the pro-life cause, he would still be a radical leftist unworthy of anyone’s vote or support. I submit to you that I would rather have someone in elective office who was indifferent to the abortion issue, yet was a strict constitutionalist and advocate of liberty and limited government, than the typical pro-life, red-state fascist.
To some pro-lifers it is not only the Constitution be damned, but national sovereignty be damned. In the American Right to Life smear of Ron Paul we read this incredible statement:
God gives no country, no state, no county, no city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion.
In the bizarro world of the American Right to Life, since they believe a person exists from the moment of conception, and since they consider a child in the womb just as much a person as Alan Keyes, the U. S. government would be justified in launching a worldwide crusade against abortion and invading every country that has legalized abortion – regardless of the legality of abortion in the United States.
Since the chance of the federal government or a significant number of state governments criminalizing abortion is a big, fat zero, only an appeal to religion or morality can truly stop abortion, not electing a Republican majority in Congress, not electing a Republican president so he can appoint more pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, not the federal judicial system, not amending the Constitution, not lobbying, not protests, not marches, and not by centralizing more power in Washington DC.
As Dr. Paul has well said:
A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.
Ron Paul is the most principled and consistent pro-life member of Congress. Shame on American Right to Life for its assault on Ron Paul and the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
