Transcript of Dr. Ron Paul's speech at the Texas GOP ConventionSubmitted by MilanforPaul on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:20
Approximate Transcription of Ron Paul’s speech to the Texas GOP Convention on June 7, 2012
(We listened again and again to the You Tube video of his speech and worked hard towards accuracy in recording his words on paper for people who otherwise might not be able to hear them. Some phrases were unintelligible to us, so we had to leave out a word, a phrase and a sentence here and there. We may have made a few errors as the audio wasn’t perfect and the reaction to his speech was literally thunderous. [The crowd’s reaction is described inside brackets.] We hope this helps and we apologize for any errors.
Video location http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BS7AFqukV0&feature=youtu.be , we started transcribing where he got into the meat of his speech at 7:10:
It’s a real delight to be here and visiting with enthusiastic individuals who really are concerned about our future. I was asked to talk about uniting the party, as well as balancing the budget. And that’s a challenge in itself. You know, we’ve been working on that for a few years! [chuckle] The very first time I got interested in this, it was only 39 years ago! You know, my enemies, my political enemies, say, “Yeah, you’ve been working on it 39 years and look at it! Look at where the deficit is right now!” Well, I tell you what, I was voting on the short end of most of the votes and maybe that’s one of the reasons why we haven’t balanced the budget!
So uniting is one thing, uniting is very important, but you have to ask the question, “What are you going to unite around?” If you unite around No Child Left Behind, if you unite around the Department of Education, expanding Medicare Benefits, if you unite behind things that cost money, what good is it?
So sure, we want to be united, but we have to unite on the right principle. And if you get confused on what the right principle is and what the right principle should be, why shouldn’t we all just unite behind the Constitution?!!!
[loud cheering & applause]
Last week there was a little bit of uniting going on and it wasn’t even just meant to show that uniting and compromising and getting together was a Republican issue, but the newspapers, especially in Washington, D.C. exclaimed, “How wonderful it is! They finally are working together! They got together! The Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership got together and they passed this 140 billion dollars export-import bank loan, which is nothing more than corporate welfare. So compromising and getting together to spend more money is what our problem has been! We have to get together to cut spending!
[enthusiastic cheering & applause]
I don’t know why we can’t get together and agree that we get rid of foreign aid [cheering] Where does it say in the Constitution [CHEERING]
But there’s one place where we have gotten real progress. In the Republican party as well as in a spirit of coalition with the opposition, as a consequence of the hard work and support of thousands of people, many good economists over the last many decades. And that is we are making great progress in calling to task the Federal Reserve System! [exuberant cheering and calls to END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED!]
I think that’s a great idea! Where did you get that idea?
[cheering and laughter]
But, believe it or not, the Republican Party leadership wasn’t doing a very good job on this. There’s been a bill floating around the Congress for a long time about AUDITING the Federal Reserve, which is the first step. Ending the Fed will come when it fails to function very well and they’re getting awfully close to that. But the Auditing the Fed comes first and there’s a big coalition; Americans agree by 75% to 80% that the Congress should act responsibly and know exactly what the Fed is doing. This past week or two, the leadership on our side of the aisle announced that we will have the major vote on auditing the Fed in July of this year!
[WHOO! YEAH! APPLAUSE!]
And I predict one thing: that it is going to pass; and I think we’ll have a lot of Democrats vote for it.
You know, one time somebody asked me, “what exactly are you running against? Who is the individual? Are you out to get Obama? Or just what?” I said, “I’m running against Keynes!” [laughter] This is true. Keynesianism has infected our society for the past 50 years and unfortunately a Republican president in the early 70’s said, “We’re all Keynesians now.” As if we finally had arrived. But I tell you what, my goal is to make sure that we’re not all Keynesians anymore and that we all believe in free markets, sound money, and the Constitution!
[CHEERING & applause]
[cheering] _______ ? We’re in the age of transition away from Keynesianism, because Keynesianism is a modified version of central economic planning and people thought we could have this modification, reject the total free market and reject total socialism, but total control through regulations and central banking is just as harmful and will bring the economy down. And that is what is happening to us today. It took a long time. We’ve lost 98% of the value of our currency since 1913 because of the Federal Reserve System. The major crisis that we need to talk about back in the 70’s coming from the loss of the last link of our dollar to gold that would lead to the economic crisis we have today. And in the last four years, believe me, people are waking up. That is why we’re getting attention on the Federal Reserve. We’re in the transition: Keynesianism doesn’t work. Socialism and Communism didn’t work. The great Austrian economist Mises predicted as early as 1912 [applause] that socialism would fail because it alters the important factor that you don’t have a pricing structure. Under Keynesianism, under the system, we have an economic pricing structure for interest rates. So that disrupts the economy. And it encourages the debt. We have a debt crisis. Not only in the United States, not just in our individual states, but worldwide. Greece is just a bare opening up of what is going to happen in many, many countries. And we’re not much better off. We’re just in better shape because the people still trust our dollar. But the transition is occurring. Something will have to replace it. That is our job as conservatives and Constitutionalists and free-market people and people who believe in property rights. We better have an alternative, because those who want to yes force and power are up there, they’re in Washington and they’re anxious to go to this.
This is why the grassroots’ effort and making sure you send only individuals who honestly believe in something and understand the marketplace, because there will be a change and we will not be able to maintain the status quo. This debt cannot be maintained. I am convinced in economic terms that our country has been slipping for more than ten years economically: no true jobs, jobs going overseas, explosion of debt, devaluation of the currency. And with all jobs going overseas with an explosion of debt which cannot be maintained. So that time is coming; we don’t know when it will come, but I do know we have our work cut out for us. But the answers are there and that’s the great thing about it! And it’s a great answer! It’s a freedom answer! It’s sound money, it’s honest money, property rights and it’s individual liberty. And of course, I put in the mix -- and this I think is so important -- is we need to address the subject of foreign policy. We cannot be the policeman of the world!
It was ultimately the foreign policy of the Soviet system that brought them to their knees: ironically it was an overextension into a country called Afghanistan.
The first president I was able to vote for, I believe still was a very remarkable president. Not perfect, by my terms, but very, very good. He was a military man and that was Eisenhower. [cheering] Eisenhower was elected in 1952. Guess what he ran on? “Stop the war! Vote for me; I’m going to end the war the Democrats have started.” And he did. It took eight months and the war ended.
The other thing Eisenhower did was he refused to take the advice of his intimate advisors to use a nuclear weapon against the Chinese.
He also went against his advisors who said, “Send in troops into Vietnam.” As a military man, he said, “That would be foolish!” Unfortunately, that happened under the next administration. But also, I remember this so clearly: in 1956 when I thought, “Well, I remember World War II and the Korean War.” I knew about the draft and it seemed to be inevitable; I always assumed that I would be drafted. Well, in 1956 there was a Suez crisis and, thank goodness, Eisenhower took care of that in a week. He said, “I’m not going to send troops in there.” And the world didn’t come to an end! He saved a lot of lives.
One of the strongest suggestions I have is about economics and balancing the budget and coming together. 75% to 80% of the people now say we ought to come home from Afghanistan. [CHEERING] But if you aren’t a believer in the government, you have to be -- you have to not believe in unlimited war. The wars are being planned; we’re just waiting on the day that the troops will be there. The bombs continue to fall; we have drone wars going on constantly; we’re wondering when we’re going into Syria; wondering when are we going into Iran. And this, WE’VE GOT TO HAVE THE MONEY, even if we want to go. WE CAN’T DO IT! WE’RE FLAT-OUT BROKE! And one of these days they’re not going to loan us the money.
So this is an economic crisis for the American people. We have used this “less military intervention” often as Republicans. Eisenhower did it, but also, in the year 2000, our candidate argued for an humble foreign policy, no policing of the world and no nation-building. What’s wrong with that foreign policy? I think that’s the one we need. [CHEERING & APPLAUSE]
Right now there’s a lot of concern that the law changed, not only by executive orders and some of the court cases, but also by what Congress has done. It is established and understood and part of our culture and our law today that accepts the notion that our president can use the military to arrest American citizens. [loud booing] Arrest American citizens -- that would be one thing bad enough -- but it is also understood now by those in charge that they can be held in secret, without an attorney! [BOOING] INDEFINITELY! [BOOING] That is NOT what America is all about! I tell you that is an injustice and that has to be challenged!
I think a little bit back about Texas history. You know, the Mexicans, Mexico got their independence in 1821 from Spain. They wrote a pretty good Constitution in 1824 and by 1832 there was some disruption in Texas, namely near where I live and it was a little town called Velasco and there was a battle in Velasco. Guess what they were fighting over? The military, the Mexican military arrested 17 Texans -- including William Travis -- in a little town called Anahuac in Galveston Bay and they were furious. Mainly, because the military arrested them, they were denied a civil trail and they were going to be hauled off to Matamoros to be prosecuted and they, and that was the first fight really of the War for Independence. So, that was the issue that motivated our founders: the British, the soldiers came in, invaded their houses, and marched in and made arrests. So it’s military control of the civilians that prompted our Revolution, the Texas Revolution, and it’s been legalized in this country. And I would say it’s time to remove that and live up to the rule of law, the 5th amendment _____________________________ [loud cheering; so we couldn‘t understand what he said next.]
It has been stated by some of the legal advisors to our current president that he has the authority, not only to retain individual Americans that he suspects might be bad people, but he also claims that he has the right that if you had a trial as an American citizen and you were found to be innocent, that they can still hold you in a secret prison. [BOOING] People will say, “What, how many times has that happened?” It only needs to be on the books and happen once or twice and that’s way too much! [CHEERING] On a routine basis our president has meetings with his legal advisors, because they go over a kill list. “Who’s going to get killed without due process of law?” It reminds me of what Roosevelt did. Roosevelt -- I bet you can guess was probably not my favorite president -- Roosevelt, of course, stole the gold from the American people __________________________ [couldn’t understand] you know, and then he stole the gold at $20 an ounce. What he did then was they were fixing the price of gold so that they could inflate. So on a daily basis Roosevelt and some of his economic advisors would sit around a table and decide what the price of gold would be. And -- but today -- I thought that was pretty bad -- but today, literally they sit around and they pick a hit list. Some are American citizens that are on these lists, but people all around the world. They’re bad guys, they’re terrorists, they want to kill us, they want to do these things and they say, “We can do it in a sterile way; all we have to do is have a drone. Shoot ‘em; nobody’s endangered.” Well, guess what? Using drones to drop bombs and innocent people are getting killed, no due process of law. Guess what? It makes a lot of enemies for us. I think it’s a foolish foreign policy!
[CHEERING, WHISTLING, APPLAUSE]
We have drifted a long way from the idea of due process of law. They’ve made fun of this process. The administration when they have been quizzed on this, “Well, what about the 5th amendment? Aren’t we supposed to have due process of law?” They said, “Well, we do have due process of law. But we fulfill the obligation to have due process of law, because two or three individuals in the White House sit around and they decide whether he’s a really bad guy or not. But one thing we try to remember -- whether it’s in this country or any place in the world -- and we say, “That guy is a bad guy and he needs -- we need to takwe care of him.” He’s still a suspect! He’s still a suspect. He’s not a terrorist: he’s a suspect. So all around the world, we’re deciding just willy-nilly who the terrorists are and who the suspects are and I’ll tell you what: it’s going to get us more trouble than not, than good. And that’s where we are today. So this is the reason that we don’t have ----------to think ----- [couldn’t understand - I think it was something about the Fifth Amendment.] that these ideas are coming from the far left. These ideas are traditional; they’re conservative, they’re Constitutional, and they’ve been Republican in the past. I would like to say: it’s time for us to revitalize these ideas of due process of law and NEVER GO TO WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR! [CHEERING< WHOOPING, APPLAUSE, STANDING OVATION]
How did we ever come to this? To accept and sit back and let our government go to war without a declaration? And you know, this administration, they’re really quite bold -- I guess you’ve noticed that. [laughter] They come and they testify and when they’re challenged, “Well, don’t you think we should have a declaration?”
[they say], “No, we don’t need that.”
“Don’t you think you should ask Congress?”
“No, we don’t need that. We’ll get our marching orders, we’ll get our Declaration of War from the United Nations and from NATO!” [BOOING]
They claim that is where the authority comes from. But I tell you what, there would be a lot less wars, we’d be a lot more peaceful, we’d be a lot richer, and I do not believe we’d be in any greater danger, if we would just follow the law! [LOUD CHEERING AND APPLAUSE!]
Four years ago when the economic crisis hit, it sent a loud signal/lot of signals? As I said, you know, it’s the announcement that there will be the elimination of the Keynesian economic theories and something will have to replace it, it could be totalitarianism, it could be free markets. I’m betting on the free markets and more freedoms, because I hear a good message when I come here. [CHEERING]
I have literally talked to hundreds of thousands of young people in the last couple of years. Many, most of them, probably on campuses. Believe me, they are concerned, they’re worried; they want their freedom; they don’t want debt; they want jobs; and they do not believe that the government can deliver it to them on a platter! They believe it can be found in the cause of liberty and not in the cause of expanding the role of government! [ENTHUSIASTIC CHEERING]
C.S. Lewis, many years ago, gave some advice about we as people. And he talked about a good egg can’t remain a good egg forever. A good egg either has to hatch or it will rot. It reminds me of an analogy. You know, maybe we could make an analogy to what the Founders did: they gave us a good egg. I think they gave us a Constitutional Republic. They gave us this egg and it has not really hatched. The ideas of Liberty were well-studied. The Founders understood it so clearly. They built on it. And because they were well-informed Biblically as well as philosophically, they were able to wrote a wonderful document. And they warned us: if we don’t remain a free and moral people, the document won’t mean anything. So I’m afraid that we’re allowing much to be rotted away. And you know, in the last ten years we’ve given up so much of our liberties. And we have become so dependent, because we became so rich, because a free society creates great wealth and that makes people soft on the issue of protecting how you produce wealth. So we were just able to redistribute wealth, reward the lobbyists, reward the politicians and everybody seemed to be just shifting wealth around and everything was okay. Except now everybody knows there’s no wealth there; it’s only, only made up of debt. So I think the whole system has rotted away and I would like to see this egg hatch. One thing the Founders warned us against was pure democracy. They said pure democracy is very, very bad. And you know, we’re supposed to be a Republic. You know, the Republican Party, you know? [applause & cheering]
So [democracy] is when the majority becomes a dictator. They can rule over the minority. Now basically, 51% or 52% are living off the 49% of the producers and it’s only consumption and this is very, very dangerous.
So we have to once again think about the principles of Liberty in order to really hatch it and grow on this. There were challenges immediately after the Constitutional Convention; they started nibbling away at the principles laid out. And I think over the last couple of years [it] has not been good, but I think the growth of the Freedom Movement in the last 5 or 10 years has been fantastic! The last five years have been marvelous and the young people are real attracted to it. So I would say things are going very well in that regard. So what we need to do is make sure this is encouraged and make sure that the people know and understand it and know what to respond to, because the government we get -- it’s really what the people allow to happen. You know, it’s easy for us -- as I do so often -- come down here and say, “the executive branch, the courts, and the congress - it’s all their fault!” No, it’s all our faults, because we’re responsible for the people up there. [cheering and applause]
You know, frequently I use the quote from Samuel Adams about an irate, tireless minority, will bring about changes and they’re more important than the majority. But it’s a mixture. You know, ideas do have consequences. It’s estimated 4 or 5% of the people who led our Revolution knew it and understood it and the majority, you know, did this back-and-forth [he made a back & forth hand motion]. But fortunately the leaders, the one who had the right ideas, they won out. But eventually, ideas have consequences. An irate, tireless minority is very, very powerful. But you know what? You still have to sell it to the people. Because it is the people who will make the decision that there will be an endorsement. So I think there’s an irate minority, tireless minority fighting the majority for the cause of Liberty and that’s exciting! [WHOO! YEAH!]
There are some issues and on some issues we are winning. And we CAN win! We still have enough freedom to bring about the changes. These changes ARE occurring. I mentioned the Federal Reserve. This is way beyond what I ever dreamed could happen, because I was there [in Congress] for a good many years and nobody was paying any attention, so I thought, that’s the way it would be forever. But, NO, the conditions of the country are coming about and it’s the fruition of those who academically have provided so much information for us.
And the same thing is occurring with these endless wars. You know, I’m surprised: why have we put up with a war, the longest war in our history? You know, when Eisenhower, when the country got irate over the Korean War, it was only two years! The war started in ‘50 and by ‘52 he ran his full election on “This war is stupid! What are we doing this for?” So, but here we are: ten years. How long are we going to do it? How long is it going to continue? And I think it’s way too much internationalism. I like internationalism as voluntary: voluntary trade, voluntary travel, freedom of movement and all that, but I do not like the idea, I am not -- I’m not much enamored by the internationalism of the United Nations, and NATO and World Trade Organizations and all these things. That’s all GOVERNMENT internationalism; THAT will not solve our problems. That’s more government, and we need, of course, LESS GOVERNMENT! [cheering]
Sometimes it might be discouraging that we try to fight these battles; we try to win votes; we lose the votes and it just seems so futile. People say, “well, my congressman . . . He doesn’t listen to me.” You know, you hear the stories over and over. . . . It’s irrelevant if you win or lose one battle, but you gotta WIN THE WAR! [CHEERING, WHOOPING! APPLAUSE; “PRESIDENT PAUL! PRESIDENT PAUL! PRESIDENT PAUL!]
The neat thing is, we don’t have to invent anything new, you know, because we’ve had a taste of it, we can improve on it. We don’t have to invent the gold standard, but we certainly can have a better monetary standard. We know what freedom is about, we have a maximum amount of freedom of any country, so we don’t have to invent this, but we can do a better job and maybe have a better protection of individual liberty. So we can improve on this; we don’t have to invent it and it isn’t like we have to say, “America is a mess and it’s all their fault.” We can pick up the good parts of America and the good parts of markets and property rights and contracts and, you know, limited government.
This is what we can do, it’s available to us; it will not be nearly as difficult for our shift toward Liberty as it would be, say, for a country like Russia, because they didn’t have our traditions and they still have a lot of problems. But we have to get people confident that FREEDOM REALLY IS THE ISSUE! To understand how it works, because we have been taught for so long, “freedom is okay, but don’t carry it too far.” Well, I would say: FREEDOM IS FREEDOM. Freedom comes from the fact that you are an individual. You get your Life and your Liberty from your Creator and the government should protect it and . . . [couldn’t hear the last part because of loud cheering].
We are frequently criticized, you know, for our economic policies and our foreign policies: “you’re going back to the old days of isolationism, and the old days of the gold standard.” But, let me tell you: BIG GOVERNMENT IS VERY, VERY OLD and big government and inflation and destruction of currency; that is ancient and based on ideas that are wrong. Those who criticize those of us who want a lot less government: they are the past -- we are the FUTURE!
We must maintain a sense of curiosity, not just that we want a better life or we want to be left alone or we want peace, but we have to be curious enough to know exactly the plain truth of economics, foreign policy. You’re in a unique group. Most people don’t come to political rallies. Believe me, they go to the last minute, they look up and think, “I wonder who I should vote for today?”
So if you come to a place like this, you’re in a small minority. So your responsibility is much greater. But the responsibility is also to understand the issues and not casually accept, “oh, well, yes, the government says I have to do this and the Federal Reserve System, oh they’re wonderful; they’ve always taken good care of us. And, you know, we also have to have a welfare system ‘cause we don’t want anybody falling through the cracks and also, well, you guys who want freedom, you’re not humanitarian; you don’t care about your fellow man.” Well, Guess what? You can’t be a humanitarian without being for the free market, because . . . government destroys people’s wealth and causes poverty . . . [couldn’t hear because of cheering].
A lot of people want to criticize and say, “well, you still want too much liberty. You want people to make all their decisions for themselves?” YEAH, I DO!!!
“But what if people make mistakes?” Well, then they suffer the consequences. [cheering]
. . . What if a politician makes a mistake? Does he suffer? No he’s probably protected and WE suffer! No, we want to make our hard decisions. We should have a right to spend our own money. What’s wrong with that scenario? It’s your money; you worked for it. And if you understand natural rights, you understand that rights of individuals: Life, Liberty; it should follow that you have the right to keep the fruits of your labor. They’re yours, not the government’s. [cheering]
We also understand pretty well in this country, that we have intellectual freedom. We’re allowed to read books--even books about communism; they are very destructive philosophies --we don’t burn books and take them off the shelves.
WE have religious freedom and we’re pretty good at religious freedoms. Sometimes we see some things that aren’t perfect, but basically, we’re allowed to have religion, we’re allowed to pick no religion. And religion: can you imagine the dangerous things that have happened over the history of the world in the name of religion? But we don’t say we cant have religion because there’s a risk to it.
And then they say, “Well, if you legalize all this freedom of choice, even on social matters, your own personal choices, you’re going to ruin your life by the way you eat.” In a free society you will always be able to buy a big drink with a lot of sugar in it!
In a free society you will always be able to buy and drink raw milk, if you like.
But then people say, “Well, that’s okay, but there are other things we don’t want you to do. We don’t want you to put other things in your body that harm you; therefore, we need to have somebody protecting you against those dangerous things.”
Well, everything is dangerous. Where is the responsibility? It should be in a free society, it should be by the individual.
But the one reason why there is a hesitation on the left about economic freedom is they’ll say, “Well, there’ll be stupid people out there, and they won’t save their money and they won’t take care of themselves.” and others say, “ . . . if we allow people to put it in a . . . whenever they want, they’re going to make a lot of mistakes.” But you know, here’s what happens is . . . It’s this lack of tolerance; it’s like if I endorse your freedom to do whatever you want religious-wise or economically or whatever, then I endorse what you do -- but that is not the case. Because you have religious freedom, I don’t endorse your religious beliefs; I endorse your right to do what you want.
If you understand the freedom philosophy, you understand why there will be more peace, there will be more prosperity, there will be more tolerance.
Now, once again, how do we unify people? How do we bring people together? That is the message. That is the message that brings us together, because we don’t have to ask you what you are going to do with your freedom. You might want to use your freedom for one thing, you for something else, but you come together and say, “as long as you allow me to do my thing and spend my money and I assume my responsibility, we should all fight for the same thing and that is our freedom. … [couldn’t hear the rest because of the cheering].
I am convinced that we do live in very important times, very interesting times, but I am very much optimistic on what’s happening intellectually. Tell you what, when I come to a group like this, people like you: conservatives who want less government, who believe in the Constitution, this helps me a whole lot. But when I go to Washington [his shoulders slump] I have trouble. That’s why I come home frequently!
I just sponsored a piece of legislation this week and I just want to mention it to you. I want to see how you respond because you might disagree with me on this. Because, you know, we’ve had presidential conventions going on . . . I was a delegate for Ronald Reagan in 1976 and that was the last time we actually had a convention that was designed to pick a candidate. But since that time --
Republicans and Democrats -- they’re not for that purpose, they’re just shows. And guess who’s paying for it? You’re paying for the Democrats and the Democrats are paying for the Republicans, but most people aren’t either Republican or Democrat, but the large majority are Independents and they have to pay. Guess how much they’ve spent over the last -- since 1976? It’s 220 million/220 billion dollars! [couldn’t understand if he said million or billion] to do all that stuff: grandstanding and all this free advertising. So I cosponsored a bill that says. “NO MORE! No more tax money for conventions!” [CHEERING]
Today we face the economic crisis. I think every bit as serious as the economic crisis -- matter of fact, I put it a little bit higher than the economic crisis -- is the attack on our civil liberties. I made mention of how we can be arrested and these assumptions made. I think this is a very, very serious shift. And the way it comes about, I mean the fact of executive orders. You know, if I had ever had a chance to be the president and I could use executive orders, the only executive orders I would ever do was to sign an executive order to cancel out these executive orders.
According to our Constitution, who writes the laws? It’s the Congress supposed to write the laws. And not the president and not the courts. Just think where we would be if we would prohibit the courts from writing laws or interfering in state laws. Guess what? We would never have Roe vs. Wade. We wouldn’t have a Texas law that had been repealed by the Supreme Court. . . . [couldn’t understand the last of the sentence because of loud cheering]
In fact, I strongly support the position that we could settle a lot of the problems -- it wouldn’t be perfect -- and that is, repeal Roe vs. Wade. I have a bill in, if by a majority vote in Congress and the signature of the president that the jurisdiction of that issue is removed from the federal courts. [missed a sentence because of cheering]
And if you take a lot of the laws the executive branch writes, not only the executive, but his signing statements, “well, I like this part, but I don’t like this part. I’m willing to sign this.” They take it upon themselves that they have a line item veto.
But what about regulations? Are regulations equivalent to laws? Absolutely! They’re worse! Because nobody knows what they say and you’re always tried in a court outside the regular court system; you’re guilty until proven innocent. Thousands and thousands of pages! When are we going to wake up and say, “Enough is enough!”?
On January first of this year, the American people suffered the onslaught of 40,000 new laws. That’s too many! I’d like to get rid of 40,000 laws!
You know, another bit of encouragement we had this week with the election in Wisconsin. [cheering] . . . A difficult task, politically unpopular, and up until now, it’s been a political . . . To take on unions, government unions, but Walker took it on and he came out with more votes this time than when he went in. [cheering] We need more people with backbone! We need to stand up! [cheering] I think this victory was very good and it will help. It’s not going to solve all the problems. It’s going to help other states. States have more obligations. Texas has been a better state and we’ve done a bit better because some of our rules are stricter -- we didn’t suffer as much in the recession and all. But the fact that we didn’t stay like California and others that have just gone overboard on these promises, there’ll be more states seeing an out here. But states don’t have a printing press and they have more pressure. In Washington it’s different, because when the politicians know that they can continue to spend and they don’t have to face up to their constituents and say, “well, no I can’t vote for this and this and this and I’m not going to vote anything on the military” they go on and on and they keep voting for it. Guess why they can get away with that? Because they always go to the lender of last resort and that is the Federal Reserve.
[END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED!]
You know, if you’re looking for solutions economically and you want a different foreign policy, and you want to bring things under control, you do have to study the issue of money. [I think when he says the issue of money, he means the Fed simply runs the printing presses to issue worthless paper money without anything of value to back it.] Because it’s very bad constitutional law because gold and silver is still legal tender under the Constitution. Morally is it worth it to counterfeit? So it is a moral [I think he said, “predicament”]. Economically it is a disaster, because it is the cause of the business cycle: booms and busts. Every once in a while, you get big busts and we’re in the middle of this big bust which I believe has actually been going on for 12 years, since the year 2000.
But this other notion which is less talked about is the fact that it facilitates big government and politicians don’t have to act responsibly. Do we get knocks on the door in Washington saying, “people are in trouble, so I think what you should dl is cut what I’m getting by 10% next year.”? NEVER! We never get that! But the facilitating of this by saying, “if you have these treasury bills and the market doesn’t want to buy them and the Fed buys them, not only do they keep interest rates relatively low, we have negative interest rates right now. Gross distortion and guess what it’s doing? Building up debt! And not stimulating the economy. But guess who got bailed out? All these guys ripping us off for 12 to 15 years with this financial bubble in the housing market - they’re the ones that got bailed out! What happened to the average guy, the middle class? They suffered the consequences; they lost their jobs and they’re losing their houses. So this whole notion that the Welfare System will take care of the poor is a lie! It takes care of the rich. [cheering and applause] We are getting close to that day and we should be ready for it and that should be the obligation of the party that voices good sentiments toward fiscal conservatism and bringing people together.
Well my ideas of bringing people together: if you bring people together for the wrong ideas, what good is it? You have to bring them together for the right idea! [cheering] If I am reading the future correctly, especially . . . the next generation, believe me, they’re studying, they’re reading, they know the free market economists, they understand the principles, they know this system isn’t working, they’re sick and tired of the wars, they want their personal liberties, and they’d like to have a job! So I’m optimistic and thank you very much for coming! [Thunderous applause and a standing ovation]