Thursday, June 26, 2008

Book Exerpt About Ron Paul


Thought I'd share this with you.



Winning

Against The Odds

A Look At The Ron Paul Story




By

Joan Reinbold


Copyright © Joan Reinbold


"First they ignore you,

then they ridicule you,

then they fight you,

then you win."


-- Mahatma Gandhi


Table Of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………..5

Chapter 1……Business As Usual……………..7
Chapter 2……Opportunity For Change….13
Chapter 3……Beginnings……………………….22
Chapter 4……Military…………………………….37
Chapter 5……Political Views………………….45
Chapter 6……Conclusions…………………….101


Introduction


I used to live in Texas, and so may have heard of Ron Paul in some news broadcast. But I don’t think so.

When I applied to a ghostwriter position for a political book, I wasn’t sure of the objective. The request was to write about someone named Ron Paul. He was running in the 2008 United States presidential campaign. The requestor had specific guidelines on what they wanted expressed.

As with any project, I did extensive research. The more I found the more I was fascinated by how this one individual worked within government and as a doctor. I also found that he didn’t fit the mold for “regular” politics and that that was probably why there was limited information in general sources. The internet however had vast amounts of information.

And as far as talking to people, they had the same response as me, “Dr. who?”

So, I was looking for information on a doctor who had been in the United States House of Representative off and on since the 1970’s and then steadily for the last ten. He represents the coastal area of Texas. His co-workers in Congress call him ‘Dr. No’ but not as a bad name.

The Republicans, his official party, don’t seem to agree with him. Despite this, Dr. Paul is considered consistent, principled, and a man of great integrity.

Here was a mystery person who is a public figure. But why didn’t people want to hear what he has to say?

Yet those who do know something of his policies say that he has workable solutions to:
• the loss of your buying power.
• health care
• wars,
• corruption,
• school quality

and many other areas.

What they said wasn’t the usual political talk. Ron Paul’s solutions for the country’s problems may be just what the ‘doctor ordered’.


Chapter 1
Business As Usual

“As citizens of this democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the
law-givers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end.”
-Adlai Stevenson

Imagine going to work everyday and being only one of a few people following the rules? Imagine that this goes on year after year? You point out why it’s important to follow the operating manual. Maybe a few others listen. You keep making decisions based upon the rules you said you’d uphold when you started your job. You stay because you know that your work is important and believe that you make a positive difference.
You are persistent in doing your work and speaking out about making decisions based upon the operating guidelines. Business goes well and not so well as time goes on. Eventually, the not so well starts to be more obvious. But co-workers still think that what they do is more important.
Are you a whistle blower? No, you don’t fit into the standard whistle blower mold. You do give speeches and talk to the media. Mostly the media ignores your voiced concerns or even worse portrays you as a quack. You have been very open and consistent in saying ‘the rules need to be used.’ Yet, business is as usual and continues to become more of a monster.

An outside organization evaluates your work and ranks you at number 27 out of 200 other people who work in your category. They looked in part at you having been on a finance committee, how long you’ve been there and how much influence you have.
Then there is the watchdog group that watches over your workplace. You have been saying what they have been saying.

…current long-range fiscal path is clearly imprudent and fiscally unsustainable. It is also alarming given the range of current and emerging problems that require attention: health care, energy dependency… These long-term challenges have profound implications for our future economic growth… Unless these issues are effectively addressed, they will surely begin to manage us. What is needed is a more strategic, long-term, comprehensive, and integrated approach to help capitalize on related opportunities and manage related risks within current and expected resource levels.
The watchdog makes repeated operational recommendations due to the ongoing decline. Yet, even though co-workers talk about the need for change, the solutions they propose and implement only make matters worse.
No, this is not ENRON or any of the other corporations or banks that have made the national headlines. This is more pervasive than that. Actions taken by this group influence every aspect of everyone’s lives.
The watchdog is the Government Accounting Office:

Summary: A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government's Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges GAO-08-93SP December 17, 2007

Since the founding of the republic and the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. government has evolved to reflect changing circumstances at home and abroad. At the end of George Washington's presidency in 1797, there were four cabinet-level departments--most run by small staffs of civil servants--and five cabinet-level officials, including the Attorney General. Today, there are nearly 30 major federal departments and agencies with cabinet-level officials in the executive branch, and the federal workforce, including military personnel, now totals in the millions. In 1797, U.S. government spending represented about 2 percent of the U.S. economy and now it represents over 20 percent. A quick look at the federal budget reveals how much we have expanded beyond the Constitution's framers' original thoughts and our modest beginnings. In the coming decades, however, our ability to sustain even the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities of the federal government will come under increasing pressure. Without meaningful act on, by 2040 our government could only have the resources to do little more than mail out Social Security checks and pay interest on the massive and growing national debt. This is obviously an unacceptable scenario. Our current long-range fiscal path is clearly imprudent and fiscally unsustainable. It is also alarming given the range of current and emerging problems that require attention: health care, energy dependency, environmental protection, and homeland security, to name a few. These long-term challenges have profound implications for our future economic growth, standard of living, and national security. Unless these issues are effectively addressed, they will surely begin to manage us. What is needed is a more strategic, long-term, comprehensive, and integrated approach to help capitalize on related opportunities and manage related risks within current and expected resource levels.

In February 2007, the Comptroller General transmitted to Congress a new publication entitled Fiscal Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation (GAO-07-362SP) designed to provide, in a relatively brief and understandable form, selected budget and financial information regarding our nation's current financial condition, long-term fiscal outlook, and possible ways forward. In April 2007, we updated GAO's strategic plan, which describes our goals and strategies for serving Congress for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. We also issued separately a part of it that contains detailed descriptions of the key themes and strategic forces framing our strategic plan and their implications for governance n the 21st century (GAO-07-467SP). This document, as the next piece of that body of reports, lays out a set of analytical tools to help policymakers transform government to better meet the demands of the 21st century. At GAO, we strongly believe that consistent use of these items will help policymakers (1) reach consensus on the outcomes Americans most want their government to achieve, (2) increase transparency and accountability, (3) better prioritize competing demands, (4) make more-informed decisions, and (5) modernize federal operations and management.
This is the group that reports on the government being overcharged. In general the GAO looks out for everyone.
Here’s information from their website:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes. Gene L. Dodaro became Acting Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office on March 13, 2008, succeeding David M. Walker, who appointed him upon resigning. Mr. Dodaro will serve in
this position until the President nominates and the Senate confirms a successor from a list of candidates proposed by the Congress.
Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced.
Our Core Values of accountability, integrity, and reliability are reflected in all of the work we do. We operate under strict professional standards of review and referencing; all facts and decsionaanalyses in our work are thoroughly checked for accuracy.
Our Work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees or is mandated by public laws or committee reports. We also undertake research under the authority of the Comptroller General. We support congressional oversight by auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively; investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities; reporting on how well government programs and policies are meeting their objectives; performing policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration; and issuing legal decisions and opinions, such as bid protest rulings and reports on agency rules.
We advise Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and responsive.
Our work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, saving the government and taxpayers billions of dollars.
The other evaluating organization is a Knowlegis. This information is from a press release on the Representative Paul’s U.S. House of Representatives:

Congressman Paul Ranks #27 in House GOP. March 3, 2008. For immediate release. Washington, DC –
Knowlegis released the 2008 Congressional Power Rankings today on Congress.org marking the fourth edition of the Power Rankings, which compiles more than 20 objective criteria measuring power in Congress.

Knowlegis ranks Congressman Ron Paul #27 out of 200 House Republicans. Among the criteria that garnered this standing were his Ranking Member status on the House Financial Services Committee, tenure and influence.


Chapter 2

Opportunity For Change

People point out that Ron Paul talks faster than they’d like him to at times and that hiss during a debate didn’t sound good. The use of old terms such as Red China and manifesto stand out. And he focuses on the youth while pointing out that he was surprised to see how many older people are concerned about the state of the country. Is he just another politician? He knows how to debate and engage a crowd.

He is also well informed and when he isn’t he says so. His is not the usual political answer. He must be a challenge to a lot of people within his political party. Why? They represent a ‘modern day’ version of politics. Ron Paul represents what today seems to be out of style. He uses history and current happenings to form opinions. He points out that there is a need to look at what has changed, what isn’t working, and what will work because it is the tried and valid way of running the government. That doesn’t always go over well.

When something isn’t working, simply go back and read the directions. Follow the owner’s manual to get things back in order. This country’s founders were knowledgeable of human behavior and had experienced problems. Problems were taken into consideration in the development of the country. Allowances were made for change. The hard part is saying that what you’re doing isn’t working in order to “have a fresh start”.

Dr. Paul expects individuals to be accountable. Morality isn’t dictated by government ‘ruling’ but comes from the individual and local society/church. Perhaps a meaning for what is meant by the separation of church and state. Morality can’t be legislated.

You have the choice of taking action by speaking out, writing, voting, etc., to bring about change. Change can help everyone and not just special interest groups, whether social or economic. Rights taken away from the local level of a community takes away individuality. There is a sense of loss of identity, a loss of authority, and a loss of self.

Do you have the last say about what happens in you local school? What about your tax dollar or even the food you eat? What about your medical care?

Small businesses are impacted by government regulations. Here is information from the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy:

Report on the Regulatory Flexibility Act
FY 2007
Annual Report of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and Executive Order 13272
February 2008
Small businesses are the nation’s economic backbone, representing 99.9 percent of all employer firms and generating 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the past 10 years. Our office is dedicated to fostering a regulatory environment that enables these small entities to further innovate in the dynamic U.S. marketplace. …

…The cost of complying with federal regulatory requirements has grown dramatically since the early 1970s, and small businesses have borne a disproportionate share of this regulatory burden. In 1979, the cost of federal regulations reached an estimated $100 billion, representing a fivefold increase from the 1970 total. Recent estimates indicate that this cost has further expanded to $1.1 trillion, or more than $10,000 per household in 2004—more than the amount the average household spent on health insurance. The Office of Advocacy has played a key role in voicing small business concerns about these rising costs. Advocacy has made significant progress in working with federal agencies to improve their proposed rules by reducing their impacts on small entities while still accomplishing their regulatory objectives.
...A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in August 2007 highlighted the need for clearer standards and enhanced public participation…

Opportunity for change can be found in many ways and places. Even doing something different in a new way can enhance what you do. Take Alice Stokes Paul for example. She was an American suffragist leader. Along with Lucy Burns and others, she led a successful campaign for women's suffrage that resulted in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920.


If you find this helpful please let me know and others.
Who knows, if enough are bought then I can go to the
D.C. march and to Minn.!

Thanks!

Joan

The whole book can be found here.



Thursday, June 19, 2008

Ron Paul on Republican Position



This is from a campaign debate. Dr. Paul explains his position, it's historical significance , and why the current government policy is questionable.

Educational Interview of Ron Paul by Larry King

The Ron Paul campaign has ended but the education continues.

John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things"

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Ron Paul Los Angeles Times



The Los Angeles Times included this video of Ron Paul covering the basics of his policies...

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Ron Paul Opening Statement to Iraq Lawmakers Parts 1 & 2



Ron Paul Questions Iraqi Lawmakers
June 5, 2008
House of Representatives hearing on proposed U.S.-Iraq Security agreement.
On June 5, 2008, the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement was examined during a House hearing. The Bush administration proposed an agreement which would permit combat forces to stay in Iraq for an unspecified period of time.
Two Iraqi Parliament representatives gave their assessment. Nadeem Al-Jaberi and Khalaf Al-Ulayyan. Al-Jaberi indicated that the U.S. presence in Iraq is highly unpopular with the public, as roughly 70 percent of Iraqis favor a withdrawal. There is also support for a timetable for the troop withdrawal.
Also discussed with the Iraqi representatives was the view of the 104 acre, $700 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad. It has 27 buildings and 3,000 employees.
Nadeem Al Jaberi: It is certainly larger than the diplomatic mission for which it has arrived for. … I mean why do we need 3,000 employees in an embassy in Iraq if we consider it as a diplomatic mission like any other diplomatic mission? From the principle of reciprocity, would it be appropriate for Iraqis to establish a 3,000 employee embassy in Washington? … It [the embassy] certainly would not be a very positive signal to the Iraqi people.
Nadeem Al Jaberi also criticized the enclosed nature of embassy activities, which sits in the heavily-fortified Green Zone: “And yes, there is some procrastination in its relationship with the society, because its relations are limited to the Green Zone.”
Spencer Ackerman notes that Khalaf Al Ulayyan, when asked about the invasion of Iraq, remarked:
Khalaf Al Ulayyan: “I would prefer if it didn’t happen, because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States



Dr. Ron Paul on Iraq

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

Ron Paul Questions Iraq Lawmakers (2/2)