Ron Paul To Congress: "Stop Legislating Your Ideas Of Fairness. Protect Property Rights. Protect The Individual"

Tyler Durden's picture

From Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s New Year’s Message to Congress

As I prepare to retire from Congress I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider. For the sake of liberty, peace and prosperity I certainly hope more members of Congress consider the strict libertarian-constitutional approach to government in 2013.

In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They should read Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say “no” in the face of pressure from the special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oath. Congress does not exist to serve the special interests. It exists to protect the rule of law.

I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes. Stop the covert activities and the meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe good faith and justice towards all nations, as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative interventionist mindset that endorses preemptive war that now dominates both parties.

All foreign aid should end, which is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayers’ dollars.

Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. U.S. debt monetized by the Federal Reserve is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start.

Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity ever than any legislation or regulation.

Understand that economic freedom is freedom. Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they want to. Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness. Protect property rights. Protect the individual. That is enough.

There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of every single member’s of Congress due in 2013.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
francis_sawyer's picture

Their idea of "protecting your property rights" & "protecting individuals" is to take away your guns...

cossack55's picture

RP is sooooooooooo 2012!!!   (Hmmmm...maybe 1912 would be more accurate)

tsx500's picture

<<<<<   Ron Paul true American Patriot

<<<<<   Barack Hussein Obama true American Patriot

wee-weed up's picture




RP is not 2012...

not 1912...


HobbyFarmer's picture

Ron Paul should TOTALLY run for presid....oh crap.  My country doesn't even have enough freedom loving individuals to elect him to represent the Republican party?????  Anyway, he'll always have a special place in my heart and that special place where his name was written on the ballot with my vote.  I'm sure it was counted.  Right?

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Our country is so far gone we may never get it back. A man like RP speaks the truth, and is marginalized because his ideas get painted as kooky talk. Who else has been splashed with that brush?

Kennedy asassination doubters, Fed doubters, Ross Perot, anyone challenging Obama, silver buyers, gun owners... am I leaving anyone out?

FreedomGuy's picture

I am really going to miss RP. Even though he was shouting into the wind most of the time, he was still the conscience of the Republicans and anyone with a shred of dedication to the rule of law.

Any theories on who might take up his mantle in the Senate and House?

Rand in the Senate.

SilverRhino's picture

<-- Ron Paul cares about Americans more than Congress
<-- Congress cares about Americans more than Ron Paul

pods's picture

So I'm the only down vote?

Congress cares about us a whole lot.
(Much like the farmer cares about his livestock.)


DaveyJones's picture

Ron's only mistake is talking like he's talking to humans

and not like he's talking to monkeys on crack.

margaris's picture

Never let idiots drag you down to their level....

It's called principles.

Seer's picture

As a farmer I kind of resent that remark.

Farmers, good ones, understand their commitment to the web of life.  It's about as symbiotic of an equation as you're going to find.  When it's cold, dark and rainy I very much doubt that anyone in Congress is going to get out of bed to attend to the well being of one of their "constituents" (unless that constituent pulls their strings).

pods's picture

I think my analogy holds.  I can understand the symbiotic relationship for a farmer (worked for one, but never was one).

Same applies to us and CONgress though.  Think of the analogy in terms of a large scale feedlot type setup. Not a small farm.  We are valuable to them in terms of what they can get out of us.  

I have the utmost respect for farmers, growing up all around them.  Used to help bail hay in exchange for bowhunting priviledges.  

But we are valuable to CONgress, and their aim is to keep the majority of us happy and content.  



Chupacabra-322's picture

The highly educated intelligent & wealthy owners of the world banking, media, military & major corporations are in control of the world political & economic policies, so morally it doesn't really matter. They deceive, wage wars, killing and impoverish millions of the other 99% human populations, for the New World Order to satisfy their greed & arrogance, all in the name of democracy, freedom & war on terrorism. Does it sound delusional? Not if you are the so called? "God" chosen white western elephants.


Seer's picture


And good to see more use of the word "deceive."  I believe that we need to start realizing that this is all part of power (it's a natural behavior- those with more power can exercise more deceit).

As I've noted, however, as much as TPTB may want/desire/feel it the best (covering for the long-shot that they're benevolent) to establish a "higher order," it won't happen.

margaris's picture

@chupacabra-322: Yes they are educated and yes they are wealthy.

But intelligent?

They didn't even see the internet coming, and how it would awaken many people.

In their greed they are grabbing for power so fast now that the whole world is waking up and realizing: "wait a minute, I don't have to put up with this crap, they don't give a shit about us."


If the elites were clever they would make two steps back, stop the wars, give the people more freedom and lower taxes and let the situation cool down, so they can make new better hidden plans to enslave humanity.

But humanity is waking up fast, and the only thing those "intelligent" elites can do is grab as much power as they can as fast as possible. ALL their agendas are cleary visible and understandable now to even the little informed people.

Greedy grabbing is the only thing they really understand to do, but that is NOT intelligence.

It's the stupidest thing they can do, it will be their demise, like it always has been for empires in human history.

Cathartes Aura's picture

with respect,

ALL their agendas are cleary visible and understandable now to even the little informed people.

the awareness of their agendas is incremental, and the absolute majority of people haven't a clue where this is headed.

even here, the groupthink is palpable.

margaris's picture

Yes, as I said:... to the little informed people.

Ofcourse there are the not-at-all-informed people around who are the majority.


It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. Samuel Adams.


There is another quote I like very much, dont know who coined it:


Nobody wants to be first, EVERYBODY wants to be second.


Meaning, many people will stay in the background not acting. But when they see brave people fight for the freedom of humanity... they will stand up and assist.


Also: if you don't believe that a small group of people can change the future, ... understand that it's the ONLY THING that ever was able to make a change happen in all of human history.

So it's not like we need a proof of concept that it will work indeed.


Cathartes Aura's picture

I like the "brush fires" in the minds idea, very much.

and yes, most people want to make their decisions in a group/crowd, within the safety of others, not singled out as "first" which inevitably will be pilloried, also by group'd thinking. . .

as to the "future" - I hold that there is no "future" - there is "past" held as memory, the ever present now, and the "future" is an imagined projection.

hopefully a few outliers will continue to act, be followed, and the future will be somewhat less painful for them as a result.

best wishes.

Diogenes's picture

Big government is the enemy of every decent honest hard working citizen and the friend of every pimp, chiseller, crook and wise guy. Ron Paul deserves credit for trying to turn it around.

toncuz's picture

Yet, it's BIG BUSINESS that bribes Congress, monopolizes resources, funds dictators, steals pensions, evades taxes, starts economic wars, gambles away shareholder equity then gets taxpayer bailouts, crushes small business owners and gives themselve bonuses that should have gone to shareholders and workers.'s OUR elected government that's the problem.

akak's picture

If your head is stuck so far up your statism-filled rectum that you cannot distinguish between true liberty and fascism, that is not my fault, nor Ron Paul's.

Bohm Squad's picture

By extension, then, if I'm bribed to do something (or not do something), then it is not my fault, but that of the person handing me the bribe?  Peddle that pig patty somewhere else.  Lack of accountability is the problem.

toncuz's picture

And Ron Paul's idea of freedom coincides with the the GOP...make your elected government watchdog small enough so corporations BECOME your government. Sorry, John Galt fruitcakes...corporate fascism didn't work in Italy or Germany and it won't work in America.

otto skorzeny's picture

congress  will do the exact opposite of what he said. from the founding father's lips to Ron's.

MsCreant's picture

It is so sad he will be gone. Who will say these things when he has left?

Taffy Lewis's picture

The only voice of reason in a sea of spendaholic crack whore assclowns (with my apology to crack whores).

I am more equal than others's picture

crack whores will blow you for $5.00 and be satisfied with that.  congress forces the productive citizens to blow them and spends another $1 trillion in the name of fairness. 

From Germany With Love's picture

So, here's a hypothesis:
There is a significant number of people out there who, when not pacified through social spending, will resort to crime.

I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to this hypothesis but it ands its implications are surely worth pondering.

Bedonkedonk's picture

Then an intended victim should pacify them with a .45 jacketed hollow point.

From Germany With Love's picture

And you can tell who the harmless welfare recipients are from those who are not? The criminal ones can be very adapt at appearing harmless at times.

So is social spending in part a way of saying "Here - you have some money, now shut up and be nice"? And if so - is that a good way of handling such people or is it not?

Overfed's picture

Simple. The ones you catch stealing your shit, or breaking into your car, or hassling your family receive the .45 JHP.

centerline's picture

Not a hypothesis, it is fact.  There is a large enough segment of the welfare state that pretty much believes they have a right to other people's work product.  Decades... generations in the making have created this.

When the shit hits the fan, these people WILL riot.  

NumberNone's picture

Welfare is basically money laundering and turning welfare recipients into welfare mules.   The message to the welfare recipient is...take your money, spend your money, just don't break the law or you lose this.  They serve as nothing more than mules to take money from producers, spend money where directed, and send it directly back to 'big business'.  They get to live their subsistence lives and in return the banks, the retail industry, the manufacturers, the government get to cover the transfer of trillions in wealth in the cloak of 'good deeds and starving babies'.   In fact the people that hate 'big business' will fight to the death for this transfer of wealth.  If your government branch or business relies on welfare mule to deliver you the cash being taken from the producers, why would you ever want to end the generational welfare?  Just keep it coming.  It's brilliant.  

Overfed's picture

That has to be one of the most succinct descriptions of the welfare (and warfare) state that I've read. Kudos.

TacticalZen's picture

The followers of John Galt.


Freedom In Your Lifetime's picture

While what Ron Paul has been saying has played a huge part in my education process over the past 5 years, there isn't much more he can say that hasn't been said before. It's time for the individual to start looking after himself / herself. The debt system is crashing down sooner of later and big government is trying to get more and more control over the individual and no words will stop this. I am also sad to see Ron Paul leaving, but it makes me sadder to see the state of the country (world) at a point where words don't really matter anymore.

Those that still have the ability to critically think have acknowledged the problem and are aware of the coming consequences. Those that are smart but willfully ignorant will be kicked awake after the first shock or two (whether it is war, a more obvious police state, financial crash, currency crash, alien attack, whatever) and either adapt or die (figuratively of course). And those that are so brainwashed that they believe the drivel coming out of our 'leaders' will be manipulated by those same leaders to think those that try to think for themselves are the enemy.

It's not history repeating itself, but it's sure rhyming.

Cyrano de Bivouac's picture

Why didn't the progressives(Noam Chomsky-Counterpunch types) support RP for President? His ideas about American foreign policy were the most ethical and had the most common sense. Better than any other politician in the  American political scene in over 100+ years.

Bob's picture

Why didn't RP hook up with Nader and the two of them agree to run only on issues/changes that the two of them agree on?

Whether intentionally or not, he would appear to function as controlled opposition for the oligarchs.  That's from a Counterpunch-type perspective, of course.

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Whether intentionally or not, he would appear to function as controlled opposition for the oligarchs.

The man is a gynecologist for God's sake.  How this fact can not make you automatically love him and instantly reject thoughts like the one above, astonishes me. 

Maybe you just didn't know?



Bob's picture

I'm still waiting to hear how his neoliberal utopia will yield any semblence of freedom for anyone but the people with the market power that having most of the money provides to extract from the rest whatever the market will bear . . . how this could reasonably be expected in this world rather than the neo-financial-hippy fantasy world where prosperity and justice will prevail if only property is defined as the essence of  "liberty."

He seems like a nice enough guy who gets half the picture and, of course, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man may be king, but I see no reason to worship at that altar. I see it as a misguided conga-line of folks dressed as Founding Fathers headed into neo-serfdom. 

Call me agnostic.'s picture

I've never heard Ron promote a centrally controlled system organized by top down edicts which is what the fictional Utopia was. Are you confused?

Bob's picture

Hey, if it's not centrally controlled, what could possibly go wrong?  Especially if we call it Liberty. Who needs om with a mantra like that?

It's flower power in the language of finance embellished with mangled 18th century political-philosophical rhetoric.  Good shit . . . reminds me of pre-Reagan Haight Ashbury.'s picture

My point was that you use language imprecisely. In fact, you've employed a pejorative allusion in an entirely contradictory fashion. You criticized Ron Paul for believing in a Utopia when in fact he consistently speaks out against the Utopian dreams of central planners. Why can't you simply admit the error and stop foisting the most obvious of straw men upon those of us who know better?

Once you make the effort to use words properly you will think more clearly as a result. At that point you will understand that if you are opposed to Utopianism then Ron Paul is your ally, not your enemy.

Bob's picture

Oh, I see.  I've misused "utopia" according to your definition of the term. 

Let me dial it back, then, to "best of all possible worlds" so I don't negatively mischaracterize the pure idealism driving it. 

I think you've misinterpreted my point, however.  This reminds me of the dance Scientologists do around the issue of God:

Unlike religions with Judeo-Christian origins, the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members.

(Damn, they sound like the most FREE religion on the planet, btw.  I had no clue.)'s picture


Oh, I see.  I've misused "utopia" according to your definition of the term.

It's not up to you or me to define Utopia. The word comes from a book by Thomas More in which he described a centrally planned society. Please consider using words properly and understanding literary allusions before you employ them as you will avoid confusion in conversation and errors in your own thinking.


I think you've misinterpreted my point, however.  This reminds me of the dance Scientologists do around the issue of God:


Does your retreat into dissociated issues signal a realization that you can't make your point by rational argument against Ron Paul himself or are your thoughts dissociated from reality in general?