What if speech ron paul text

But I do want to take a moment to take a little special privilege and say, we also had a new Senator from Kentucky, and we like that too. But I never got around to talking about this program this week about the Federal Reserve, because all of a sudden there was a speech to be given by Mubarak about his potential resignation, of course he resigned today.

What should our position be about finding the next dictator of Egypt? But let me tell you, fiscal conservatives should look at this carefully, how much did we invest in that dictator over the past 30 years? And guess what? Now to add insult to injury, where do you think the money went?

To a Swiss bank account! That family, the Mubarak family had 40, 50, 60 billion dollars — nobody knows — stashed away in other countries, of your money, that is true.

Then you know, it used to be the conservatives were against foreign aid. I can see their self-esteem grow as they cash their paychecks. I have a vision for America where everyone who wants to work will have a job. Many Americans though are being left behind. The reward of work seems beyond their grasp.

Under the watch of both parties, the poor seem to get poorer and the rich get richer. Trillion-dollar government stimulus packages has only widened the income gap. Politically connected crones get taxpayer dollars by the hundreds of millions and poor families across America continue to suffer.

I have a different vision, an ambitious vision, an ambitious vision, a vision that will offer opportunity to all Americans, especially those who have been left behind. My plan includes economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas like Detroit, West Louisville, Eastern Kentucky to prosper by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there. Can you imagine what a billion-dollar stimulus could do for Detroit or for Appalachia? I want to free up the great engine of American prosperity.

I want to see millions of Americans back at work. In my vision for America, new highways and bridges will be built across the country, not by raising your taxes, but by lowering the tax to bring this American profit home.

Even in this polarized Congress, we have a chance of passing this. Liberal policies have failed our inner cities.

They have failed our inner cities. Our schools are not equal, and the poverty gap continues to widen. Martin Luther King spoke of two Americas.

He described them as two starkly different American experiences that exist side-by-side. In one in America, people experience the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the other America, people experience a daily ugliness that dashes hope and leaves only the fatigue of despair. Although I was born into the America that experiences and believes in opportunity, my trips to Detroit, to Appalachia, to Chicago have revealed what I call an undercurrent of unease.

Those of us who have enjoyed the American dream must break down the wall that separates us from the other America. I want all our children to have the same opportunities that I had.

We need to stop limiting kids in poor neighborhoods to failing public schools and offer them school choice. In my vision for America, freedom and prosperity at home can only be achieved if we defend against enemies who are dead set on attacking us. And not only will I name the enemy, I will do whatever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind. We need a national defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.

But we also need a foreign policy that protects American interests and encourages stability, not chaos. Conservatives should not succumb, though, to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow succeed in building nations abroad. I envision an America with a national defense unparalleled, undefeatable and unencumbered by overseas nation-building.

Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength. Now we must stay strong. It concerns me that the Iranians have a different interpretation of the agreement. It concerns me that we may attempt, or the president may attempt, to unilaterally and prematurely halt sanctions.

The difference between President Obama and myself, he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness. Yet everyone needs to realize that negotiations are not inherently bad. The trust inaudible verify is required in any negotiation, but then our goal always should be and always is peace, not war. We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.

Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue. Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream. This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of was handled.

Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse. If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results. Everyone claims support for freedom. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom.

They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people. But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance.

The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause. It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.

Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests. After over years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.

The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands.

Here are a few examples:. Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties.

Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible. Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.

This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber. Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.

This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.

Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds. This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant. Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.

Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts. Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted. We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty.

On Wednesday, Ron Paul stood on the floor of the House of Representatives, where he has spent 23 years, to deliver his last speech to the body prior to his impending retirement at year's end.

His sprawling, poorly organized, deeply principled remarks lasted nearly 48 minutes. The video is above. A transcript is here. Paul posed during one particularly engaging stretch is a pretty good way to get a flavor of his full remarks. One needn't agree with the premise of every question to conclude that the United States - and especially its most unjustly treated citizens - would be better off if more legislators were grappling with them.

Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword. Sign In Subscribe. Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?