donderdag, 15 november 2012
Doorsturen Doorsturen   Printen Printen

Ron Paul afscheid van Congress.

Ron Paul hield gisteren zijn waarschijnlijk laatste toespraak in het Amerikaanse Congress. Hij treedt af als Congresslid.

Deze toespraak is meer dan de moeite waard om in zijn geheel te lezen of te beluisteren.
Paul vertelt daarin een groot aantal feiten die er gebeurd zijn en tot de huidige chaos hebben geleid.
Maar ook een groot aantal punten die meer dan voldoende werk overlaten voor de huidige libertariërs om te werken om te komen tot een vrije wereld waarin vrede en welvaart heerst.


Op:  vindt u zowel de Video als de tekst.

Al weer door tijdgebrek en gewenste actualiteit kunnen we deze belangrijke toespraak niet op tijd vertalen.

We raden u aan een uurtje uit te trekken en te luisteren en/of te lezen.

We pakken toch een paar (willekeurige)  delen uit de toespraak omu een idee te geven:

Dependency on Government Largesse

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:

  • Undeclared wars are commonplace.
  • Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
  • The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
  • Debt is growing exponentially.
  • The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
  • Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
  • The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
  • It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
  • Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
  • Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
  • Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
  • Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.

Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy


Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

  • Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
  • Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
  • Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
  • Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
  • Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
  • Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
  • Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
  • Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
  • Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
  • Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
  • Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
  • Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
  • Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
  • Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
  • Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
  • Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
  • Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
  • Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
  • Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
  • Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
  • Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
  • Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
  • Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
  • Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
  • Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
  • Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
  • Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
  • Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
  • Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
  • Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
  • Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
  • Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

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. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

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.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.

2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.


What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens

the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.


Stof voor veel artikelen en discussies EN ACTIES

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Door , topic: Algemeen, Economie, Filosofie, Overheid, Politiek, Rechten, Vrijheid
Reacties op dit artikel kunnen gevolgd worden op de RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Rechtse Rakker schreef op : 1

    Goed politicus. Jammer, dat hij ermee stopt.

    Maar goed. Even off topic. Weet er hier iemand meer af van straffen in een volledig libertarische samenleving. Ik begrijp, dat dat gebaseerd is op schadevergoeding. Maar is er verschil in strafmaat bij de volgende situaties:

    A Iemand wordt op straat beschoten, schiet terug, raakt de verkeerde persoon en maakt hierdoor een onschuldig slachtoffer.
    B Iemand pleegt doelbewust een moord op iemand anders.

    En waar is dat verschil dan op gebaseerd als het alleen om de schadeloosstelling van het slachtoffer gaat?

    Hub Jongen [3] reageerde op deze reactie.
    Igor [5] reageerde op deze reactie.

  2. Mario Aandewiel schreef op : 2

    Het lijkt mij dat de initiator van het geweld, degene die het eerst geschoten heeft, niet degene die terug geschoten heeft, de schadevergoeding moet betalen.
    De strafmaat of schadeloosstelling zal door een “rechter” bepaald moeten worden

    Hub Jongen [3] reageerde op deze reactie.

  3. Hub Jongen (auteur van dit artikel) schreef op : 3
    Hub Jongen

    @Rechtse Rakker [1]:
    @Mario Aandewiel [2]:

    Een interessante case.
    Inderdaad Mario, de eerste schutter heeft direct geweld geïnitieerd.
    Maar ook de tweede (zelfverdediger) blijft verantwoordelijk voor wat hij met zijn wapen doet. Je mag verwachten (eisen) dat iemand die met een wapen rondloopt er ook mee kan omgaan.

    De case is vooral ook interessant omdat dit geval dagelijks voorkomt in al die oorlogsgebieden. Om er van af te zijn noemen politici dat “collateral damage”en sluiten ze de case.

    Wie wil een stukje maken om dit geval een aan meer mensen voor te leggen?
    Stuur aan en ik zorg voor plaatsing!

    Rechtse Rakker [4] reageerde op deze reactie.

  4. Rechtse Rakker schreef op : 4

    @Hub Jongen [3]:

    In oorlogsgebieden blijft het vaak helaas niet bij zelfverdediging… Soldaten bombarderen daar dichtbevolkte gebieden, zonder noodzaak uit zelfverdediging. De soldaten die Gaza-stad bombarderen zijn een goed voorbeeld. Ze WETEN dat daardoor onschuldige burgers hun leven verliezen. Ze lopen zelf geen enkel gevaar in hun vliegtuigje…. Op de grond wordt er trouwens ook vaak genoeg geschoten zonder de noodzaak tot zelfverdediging. Dus van die “collateral damage” ligt ingewikkelder. Maar goed ik wil me beter in de materie verdiepen voordat ik een stuk schrijf.

  5. Igor schreef op : 5

    @Rechtse Rakker [1]:
    Nee dat zie je verkeert het is juist een slechte politicus, een oprecht man die respect verdiend dat dan weer wel 🙂