Ron Paul

It is clear to most people that remittances provide a significant economic boost to many South American and Latin American countries. Remittance flows to some countries dwarf foreign direct investment and foreign aid and have a beneficial effect on economic development, enabling low-income families to better their situations. The effect of remittances on development showcases the beneficial effects of market-based interaction to improve peoples' lives.

[This thread has morphed into “Who is the best current choice to promote libertarianism?,” so please pop on over there and leave your thoughts :) --MJ]

Tom Knapp, over at KN@PPSTER, found an old, seemingly racist article written by Ron Paul, and has requested libertarians to abandon Paul for the offence.

While initially shocked and appalled, after reading the article I have to come to the conclusion that Tom jumped the gun and came to the wrong conclusion.

Here's my reply to Tom's post....
[Please leave replies to Tom on Tom's blog. If you want to flame me, you can leave them at either place :)]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the link to Paul's article and a lively debate over it. I'll be upfront and politely disagree with your conclusions and ask you to reconsider your request for ditching Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act, and I urge caution.

In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to establish a sunset for the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq (PL 107-243). There are several active pieces of legislation that would rescind the authorization to use force against Iraq , but the approach of this legislation is quite different. This legislation would sunset the original authorization six months after it is in enacted, which would give Congress plenty of time to consider anew the authority for Iraq.

For some, patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

I remain very skeptical about the idea of so-called comprehensive immigration reform and the Senate compromise now being discussed. I will oppose any legislation that in any way, shape, or form grants amnesty to the millions of people who are in this country illegally. I have advocated that we should tighten citizenship requirements, and I still believe that. Moreover, the argument that we need to start a guest worker program is simply a shell game, we already have a generous guest worker program that the American people support. Support for such a program should not be used as a back door to amnesty for illegals.

The imbalances in international trade, and in particular trade between China and the United States, have prompted many to demand a realignment of the Chinese yuan and the American dollar. Since we are running a huge trade deficit with China the call now is for a stronger yuan and a weaker dollar. This trade imbalance problem will not be solved so easily.

If a stronger yuan is implemented, increased exports to China from the US may or may not result. The weaker dollar will lead to higher US prices and crowd out the hoped-for benefits of a realignment of the two currencies.

One thing certain is that the immediate impact would be higher prices for consumer goods for middle class Americans. In many ways a weaker dollar would act as an import tax just as if it were a tariff. Both are considered protectionist in nature.

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.

Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.

If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.

The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public.

The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.

There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.

Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars.

Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul has been recognized as a top advocate for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress for the tenth year in a row, earning the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union’s annual award as a “Taxpayers’ Friend” for 2006. Only 30 of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives earned similar honors last year.

“While many Members of Congress talk about reducing the size of government, Representative Paul backed up those words with votes. This award proves that he/she is a consistent and effective ally in our battle to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.”

Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.

Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress-- and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.

The whole world is against it.

Don’t bomb Iran!

The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?