Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,
"The budget should be balanced. Public spending should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Address to the Roman Senate, Approx. 45 B.C. 
"Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty." 
"Perhaps someday Congress will debate intervention versus nonintervention, government versus voluntary planning, U.S. sovereignty versus internationalism - the pros and cons of true liberty." 
"The elite few who control the strings of power are the only ones who really count in the legislative process." 
"If covert aid to a nation is voted down, the CIA and the administration in power can find the means to finance whatever is desired." 
". . . the 'enlightened' Member who cast the crucial vote will receive an ample reward for his or her district." 
"Due to the seriousness of the problems we face, I believe it's crucial to make the point that programs are bloated, and overspending, deficits and monetary inflation are a mortal threat to a free society. . . . As the deficits grow, so does the power of the state. Correspondingly, individual freedom is diminshed." 
"I do believe that if the Democrats and the Republicans played more baseball and legislated a lot less, the country would be much better off. I am convinced the annual baseball game played by the Republicans and the Democrats must be considered one of the most productive events in which the Members of Congress participate." 
"I have trouble believing that the foreign policy of the past 70 years has served the best interests of the United States. . . . The last two wars were fought without formal declaration and without the goal of victory in mind." 
"We pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan's defense. At the same time, Japan out-competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports which then undermines our domestic steel and auto industries." 
"Loyally standing by our ally Israel. . . . We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the America(n) taxpayer will be funding both sides of any armed conflict in the Middle East." 
Several thousand men served in the Roman Senate during the 500 years that Rome was a Republic, but only one of them is remembered today. Why do modern-day philosophers and historians quote Senator Marcus Tullius Cicero? Because he challenged the Establishment that controlled the Roman government, and told the public their nation was on the verge of collapse. Shortly before Mark Antony and his fellow conspirators had Cicero assassinated in 43 B.C., Cicero proclaimed:
"The budget should be balanced. Public spending should be reduced. The arrogance of
officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed,
lest Rome become bankrupt." 
Very little has changed during the intervening years. A similar corrupt Establishment controls Washington, D.C., and most politicians are afraid to challenge them, but there have been a few exceptions. Shortly before Congressman Ron Paul relinquished his Congressional seat in 1985, he addressed the House of Representatives.
"Mr. Speaker, I shall be soon leaving the House and have asked for this special order to make a few comments regarding the problems our nation faces and the actions needed to correct them. Having been honored by the 22nd District of Texas to represent them for four terms, I have grown to appreciate the greatness of this institution. I only wish the actions performed by the Congress in recent years could match the historic importance of this body.
Thousands of men and women have come and gone here in our country's history, and except for the few, most go unnoticed and remain nameless in the pages of history, as I am sure I will be. The few who are remembered are those who were able to grab the reins of power and, for the most part, use that power to the detriment of the nation. We must remember that achieving power is never the goal sought by a truly free society. Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty. Others, tragically, will be remembered in a negative way for personal scandals. Yet those individuals whose shortcomings prompted the taking of bribes or involvement in illicit sexual activities, have caused no more harm to society than those who used 'legitimate' power to infringe upon individual liberty and expand the size of government. Morally the two are closely related. The acceptance of a bribe is a horrible act indeed for a public servant, but reducing liberty is an outrageous act that causes suffering for generations to come.
Since the time of our founding, few who have come to the Congress have been remembered for championing the cause of freedom. This is a sign of a declining nation and indicates that respect for freedom is on the wane."
Congressman Paul espoused the basic concept of freedom when he proclaimed:
"We must remember that achieving power is never the goal sought by a truly free society.
Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty."
The men who established our nation recognized the fact that most men want to rule other men, so they limited the power of the Central Government so the American people could be free. Seventy-five years later Lord Acton wrote:
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. . . . Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end," and "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 
Limited government promotes liberty; total government promotes tyranny.
Serving here has been a wonderful experience, and the many friendships will be cherished. I am, however, the first to admit the limited impact I've had on the legislative process. By conventional wisdom, I am 'ineffective,' unable to trade votes, and champion anyone's special privilege - even my own district's. It places me in a lonely category here in Washington. If the political career is not the goal sought, possibly the measuring of 'effectiveness' should be done by using a different standard.
The most I can hope for is that someday a suggestion I've made is remembered: that the debate would shift to a different plane. Instead of asking which form of intervention and planning government should impose, perhaps someday Congress will debate intervention versus nonintervention, government versus voluntary planning, U.S. sovereignty versus internationalism - the pros and cons of true liberty. Today the debate basically is only that of deciding who will be the victims and who the beneficiaries. I hope the hours of debate over the mechanisms of the political system orchestrated by the special interests will give way to this more important debate on freedom. The lack of this debate was my greatest disappointment. Only rarely did I see small fragments of this discussion, and then merely as a tactic for short-term gain rather than because of a sincere belief in the principles of liberty and the Constitution.
Congressman Paul noted:
"Instead of asking which form of intervention and planning government should impose, perhaps someday Congress will debate intervention versus nonintervention, government versus voluntary planning, U.S. sovereignty versus internationalism - the pros and cons of true liberty."
During the period between 1789 and 1933, the power of the Federal Government was limited by the 'chains of the Constitution,' but that changed during the despotic rule of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who wanted to establish a Fascist State. Most members of Congress either didn't understand the Constitution at that time, or chose to ignore it because they wanted to utilize the power of government to advance their political careers. Very little has changed during the intervening years.
One of the most important issues facing our nation is the ideologic battle between the politicians who want to maintain the sovereignty of our nation, and the internationalist politicians (elected by the Ruling Elite) who want to end national sovereignty, unify the world, establish a world religion, and enthrone a world ruler. That issue is seldom mentioned in Washington, D.C., because the Ruling Elite (the CFR, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateralists) don't want the American people to know about their plan to establish a world government. 
Some have said my approach is not practical, but most concede, 'At least he's consistent.' Since I first came here in 1976, the number of lobbyists has doubled and the national debt has tripled - $550 billion to $1.59 trillion - to me a most impractical trend. Business cycles, unemployment, inflation, high interest rates, and trade wars are the real impracticalities brought about by unwise political and economic policies. I've been impressed over the years by those who concede to me the consistency of my views, yet evidently reject them in favor of inconsistent views. Who, I might ask, is served by the politicians of inconsistency, the special interests or the general welfare?
The Federal debt was $550 billion in 1976, $1.59 trillion in 1983, and has exploded since then. The Federal debt was $9.397 trillion on March 25, 2008, which is $30,943 per person, or over $121,000 for every family of four people living in the United States today. In addition, the U.S. must borrow $2.5 billion a day to pay current expenses. 
The petty partisan squabbles that are today more numerous and more heated serve no useful function. The rhetoric now becoming personal is not designed to solve problems, nor does it show a correct perception of our country's problems. All are motivated by good intentions, but that cannot suffice. The narrow partisan squabbles are a natural consequence of an intellectual bankruptcy, whereby correct solutions are not offered for our economic problems. The 'good intentions' prompts those involved to 'do something.' It seems that narrow partisanship on the House floor contributes nothing to the solutions of today's problems.
Sadly, I have found that individual Members, even though we represent our half-million constituents, are much less important than most of us would like to believe. The elite few who control the strings of power are the only ones who really count in the legislative process. Votes, of course, occur routinely after heated debate by all those who want to ventilate. But as C. Northcote Parkinson pointed out, the length of debate on an issue is inversely proportional to the importance of an issue. Many times debate is done either for therapy or as a ritual to force Members to make public commitments to those who wield the power, a mere litmus test of loyalty, thus qualifying some quietly to receive largess for their particular district.
More often than not, the floor debates are a charade without real issues being dealt with - a mere chance for grandstanding. Budgetary votes are meaningless in that continuing resolutions and supplemental appropriations are all that count. If covert aid to a nation is voted down, the CIA and the administration in power can find the means to finance whatever is desired. Emergencies are declared, finances are hidden, discretionary funds are found, foreign governments are used, and policy as desired is carried out, regardless of the will of the people expressed by Congress.
Congressman Paul referred to:
"The elite few who control the strings of power are the only ones who really count in the legislative process."
Who are "the elite few"? They are Masons, members of the CFR, and legislators who are beholden to the "Ruling Elite" that control our nation. 
Congressman Paul also noted that:
"More often than not, the floor debates are a charade. . . . If covert aid to a nation is voted down, the CIA and the administration in power can find the means to finance whatever is desired. . . ."
On occasion, a program requested by the administration is 'stopped' or voted down. But this doesn't really change the course of events - the 'price' is merely raised. The vote can be reversed on the House floor or in the conference (committee-ed), and the 'enlightened' Member who cast(s) the crucial vote will receive an ample reward for his or her district. These arrangements or deals are routine and accepted practice. The better one is at making them, the higher is one's 'effectiveness' rating and the easier the next election.
The administration promises to fund an expensive project in a Congressman's district in exchange for his vote on a key issue. That is bribery, but is an accepted practice in Washington, D.C., today.
Recently, the national Taxpayers' Union gave me their annual Taxpayers' Best Friend Award for voting for the least amount of taxes and spending of any Member of Congress. I realize this does not qualify as a news event, but I have, over the years, tried to emphasize how dangerous is the problem of overspending and have voted accordingly. This past year, I am recorded as having voted against 99 percent of all spending. To me that means voting for the taxpayer 99 percent of the time and against the tyranny of the state at the same percentage. I must confess, though, to the possible disappointment of the anarchists, that I endorse more than one percent of our expenditures - possibly even 20 percent. Due to the seriousness of the problems we face, I believe it's crucial to make the point that programs are bloated, and overspending, deficits and monetary inflation are a mortal threat to a free society. Those not willing to vote for the cuts either must believe they are not a threat or do not care if they are. I suspect the former to be the case.
The citizens of Rome ignored Cicero's warning, and continued fighting foreign wars, amassing debt, and destroying the value of their currency. The Roman Republic fell on January 16, 27 B.C. when Octavius suspended the rule of law, and established a dictatorship in an effort to restore order. Could that happen in the United States?
Deficits are in themselves very harmful, but it's what they represent that we must be concerned about. Deficits are a consequence of spending, and this tells us something about the amount of power gravitating into the hands of a centralized authority. As the deficits grow, so does the power of the state. Correspondingly, individual freedom is diminished.
It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a cynic. Yet I am not; for I believe in the goodness of my fellow man and am realistic enough to understand the shortcomings of all human beings. However, I do believe that if the Democrats and the Republicans played more baseball and legislated a lot less, the country would be much better off. I am convinced the annual baseball game played by the Republicans and the Democrats must be considered one of the most productive events in which the Members of Congress participate.
That is a profound observation, and reminiscent of an observation that is attributed to Mark Twain, but was actually made by Judge Gideon Tucker, a former member of the New York Legislature, who wrote:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time to point out some of the contradictions that I have observed in my four terms in the Congress. These I have found frustrating and exasperating and, if others agree, possibly this recognition will someday lead to policies designed to correct them. I find these contradictions in three areas: foreign policy, economic policy and social issues.
I have trouble believing that the foreign policy of the past 70 years has served the best interests of the United States. The policy of international intervention has been followed during this time, regardless of the party in power. The traditional American policy of strategic independence and neutrality based on strength has been replaced by an international policy of sacrifices, policy that has given us nearly a century of war. The last two wars were fought without formal declaration and without the goal of victory in mind. There are many specific examples to show how irrational this interventionist policy is.
Congressman Paul noted:
"The traditional American policy of strategic independence and neutrality . . . has been replaced by an international policy . . . that has given us nearly a century of war. The last two wars. . . were fought . . . without the goal of victory in mind."
Why didn't the U.S. try to win the wars we fought in Korea and Vietnam? Why isn't the Bush administration trying to win the current war in Iraq? If you doubt the current war is a no-win war, I suggest you read the December 2007 Radio Liberty letter that is posted at www.radioliberty.com. 
We pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan's defense. At the same time, Japan out-competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports, which then undermines our domestic steel and auto industries. The result: greater deficits for us, higher taxes, more inflation, higher interest rates, and a cry by our producers for protectionism. We insist that Western Europe take our Pershing missiles. We get the bill, and the hostility of the people of Western Europe, and then act surprised that the Soviets pull out of arms negotiations and send more modern nuclear submarines to our coastline. It's a sure guarantee that any conflict in Europe - even one between two socialist nations - will be our conflict.
That doesn't make sense. Why did the U.S. subsidize the Japanese economy and undercut the U.S. economy?
Loyally standing by our ally Israel is in conflict with satisfying the Arab interests that are always represented by big business in each administration. We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the America(n) taxpayer will be funding both sides of any armed conflict in the Middle East. This policy prompts placing Marines, armed with guns without bullets, between two warring factions. Our F-15s shooting down our F-5s in the Persian Gulf War is our idea of neutrality and getting others to test our equipment. America's interests are forgotten under these circumstances."
Why does the U.S. provide weapons to both combatants in most military conflicts? The U.S. armed both sides during the war that Iran and Iraq fought in the 1980s, the U.S. armed Israel and the PLO during the wars they fought in the 1970s and 1980s, and the U.S. is currently selling sophisticated military weapons to Syria and Saudi Arabia that will certainly be used against Israel and American targets during the coming war in the Near East.
Space limitations prevent me from completing my analysis of Congressman Ron Paul's "Farewell Address" this month, but Congressman Paul's address and my commentary will be presented in subsequent Radio Liberty letters.
If you would like to have your Radio Liberty letter sent via e-mail, please fill in the enclosed slip and return it. If there is enough interest, I will make arrangements to send your letter electronically.
Despite the tragic events that are unfolding throughout the world today, many good things are happening.
Millions of people have embraced Ron Paul's philosophy, contributed to his campaign, and want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The Establishment-controlled media has launched a program that claims the occult pyramid on the back of the dollar bill isn't a Masonic emblem, or a symbol of the Illuminati. Why is that important? Because a growing number of Americans have learned about the secret societies, and the Occult Hierarchy is concerned. 
The Radio Liberty audience is growing because our listeners are telling their friends about the program, and new people are learning about the spiritual battle every day.
What can we do? We must stay the course, expose the "Spiritual Hierarchy," and tell people about God's grace.
"Amazing grace! how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found, Was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear, The hour I first believed!
Thro' many dangers, toils, and snares, I have already come;
'Tis grace hath bro't me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me, His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be As long as life endures." 
Barbara and I appreciate your faithful support, and your continuing prayers.
Yours in Christ,
2. www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul/433.html, p.1.
3. Ibid., p. 2.
4. Ibid., p. 3.
8. Ibid., p. 4.
12. www.brainyquote.com, op. cit.
13. www.lewrockwell,com, op. cit., p.1-5.
15. Stanley Monteith, Brotherhood of Darkness, Hearthstone Publishing, Oklahoma City OK, 2000. Available from Radio Liberty.
16. www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ See Also: http://populistdemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/07/dick- cheney-bets-against-us-economy.html
19: www.radioliberty.com/nldec07/html. See Also: www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html: See Also: Stanley Monteith, op. cit., p. 18.
22. Charles Johnson: One Hundred & One Famous Hymns, Hallberg Publishing Corporation, Delavan, Wisconsin, 1982, p. 49.
Return to Radio Liberty home page