Posted on 03/08/2003 9:29:27 AM PST by forest
[NOTE: This text was first published in the March 7, 1997 newsletter. It was an important message in 1997, but seems even more important today.]
Last week we gave Rep. Ron Paul's toll-free Legislative Update number (1-888-322-1414) and suggested that readers listen to his message "The Coming Police State." We were told by a lot of people that they missed it.
Originally, that message was part of a one hour speech Rep. Paul made on the floor of the House. And, thanks to Jeff in Michigan, we have the complete text. Below is the shortened version of Rep. Paul's speech recorded as the "Legislative Update:"
Centralizing power and consistently expanding the role of the Government requires an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon which a police state thrives. There are over 100 laws on the books permitting private property seizure without due process of law. We have made it easy to seize any property by absurdly claiming the property itself committed the crime. The RICO mentality relating to law enforcement permits even the casual bystander to suffer severely from the police state mentality.
The drug war hysteria and the war on gun ownership started by Roosevelt in 1934 have expanded Federal police power to the point that more than 10 percent of all of our police are Federal. The Constitution names but three Federal crimes, so where is the justification? Talk about swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have hovering over us daily the Federal police from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, CIA, DEA, EEOC, ADA, F&WL, INS, BATF, and worst of all, the IRS. Even criticizing the IRS makes me cringe that it might precipitate an audit. It seems that all administrations, to some degree, used the power of the agencies to reward or punish financial backers or political enemies.
So much [of] that had its origin in the 1930's, it was then that the FBI's role changed from friendly investigator helping local authorities to that of national police force.
We live in an age where the fear of an IRS registered letter bearing news of an audit surpasses the fear of a street mugging. The police are supposed to be our friend and the Federal Government the guarantor of our liberties. Ask the blacks in the inner city of Los Angeles if they trust the police and revere the FBI and the CIA. We should not have to cringe when a Federal agent appears at the door of our business. We should not even see them there.
A Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be protecting our right to our property, not confiscating it. Congress ought to protect our right to own a weapon of self-defense, not systematically and viciously attacking that right.
Congress ought to guarantee all voluntary association, not regulate and dictate every economic transaction. We should not allow Congress to give credence to inane politically correct rules generated by egalitarian misfits. Setting quotas ought to insult each of us.
We need no more centralized police efforts. We need no more wiretaps that have become epidemic in this last decade. We have had enough Wacos and Ruby Ridges.
IIRC, the Republican Congress passed one and President Clinton tried to use it; but the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to get the line item veto back.
Uhhh...yes. Is that controversial?
I recently got OrthodoxPresbyterian to defend the placing of a 16' x 20' billboard of simulated child pornography in his next door neigbors' front yard.
Libertarianism is a pretty tough virus, you know.
Not that OrthodoxPresbyterian believes simulated child pornography is a good thing. It is a most horrible thing he zealously defends that he does not support.
I get twisted? Really? Hey, how about a Polish sausage from the Gunga Diner? When we say Polish sausage, we mean Polish sausage...
How about it, razed? Do people have a right to voluntary cannibalism?
Razed, I recommend you don't debate me. You're going to lose badly. You're going to become very, very well acquainted with something called the fact-value problem...
You are illogical.
Just so that everybody's on the same page, there's a reason it would apply to only one or two kooks, at least in our culture. It's because there are laws against it. Yes, it's also true that it's because there's widespread social revulsion at such a thing, but that by itself isn't going to deter certain people. In fact, in many cases it would encourage them. And as more people engage in it, the harder it would be for social pressure alone to keep it in check. The law serves as a reinforcement on social mores, a quite necessary one too.
And if he didn't have any cash left for his victims, would he get to keep the car he had purchased with the illegally obtained money?
take others property for minor infractions.
Minor infractions? Changing your tune already?
But you knew such a fraudulent abuse report would be ignored by the moderators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.