President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush.  When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them.  This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern.

The logic behind funding faith-based initiatives seemed reasonable to some.  Private organizations are much more effective in charitable endeavors than government programs and bureaucracies.  Therefore, why not “outsource” some of the government’s welfare-state activities to these worthy organizations? 

This appealed to many conservatives, especially after the follow-up executive order exempting recipients from discriminatory hiring laws, which assured many that taking federal funds would not jeopardize their control over their own operations.  But beware the government program started under an administration you like, for it may look a lot different under the one you don’t.   Exemptions that Bush gave, Obama can take away.

But now, dependencies on federal money have been set, operations have been expanded accordingly, and many charities are waiting breathlessly for the administration to tell them what new conditions they will have to meet.

With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant’s faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago.  Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding?  Can they remain solvent without it?

This is the major problem with basing a private business model on the receipt of government funds.  This money does not come without control, or the future possibility of control.  We are seeing parallel control grabs in industries that have recently been the recipients of taxpayer largess.

Government officials are now discussing executive compensation on Wall Street, banking, and in the auto industry.  How much is too much to pay someone?  When is a bonus deserved?  But because politicians have bought their way into these industries, these are now political decisions.

It is easy to utilize class envy to whip up public support for these interventions, but government always slides down the slippery slope.   Politicians are also discussing other aspects of these businesses in which they are not expert, such as, what should lending standards be?  What sort of cars should we direct the auto industry to make?  Once government money infiltrates a balance sheet, “taxpayers” meaning “politicians” have a say in how you operate.

Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations.  Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end.  It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities.

Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money.  This is the best protection from government control.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

One problem with politicians is that when problems they create come to a head, they typically feel this irresistible urge to DO something, rather than to UN-do something, or to simply back off to avoid exacerbating the situation.

Too often, that which they end up doing has very little connection to the cause of the crisis, but plays well in the press and superficially makes everyone feel better.  Bills that are rushed through Congress under duress are never studied enough, providing too tempting an opportunity to quietly slip in unrelated provisions that erode freedoms in ways that would never pass as a stand-alone bill.

We famously saw this with the PATRIOT Act, but Washington learned nothing from that.

The current housing crisis and the corresponding big government fix are another prime example.  First of all, the so-called solution will actually make the problem worse.  The problem stems from easy credit and a rush to flood the housing and mortgage markets with money. Relaxed or non-existent lending standards led many into mortgages and houses they could not afford.  As more foreclosures hit, the lending institutions will continue collapsing like dominoes under the weight of all the bad paper they underwrote.  Some are reacting and reintroducing lending standards.

Thus the number of buyers in the market for homes is beginning to shrink back to its natural size, and hyper-inflated prices are falling back down to earth.  In these ways, the market is trying to correct itself in the wake of the mistakes government intervention encouraged them to make through easy credit.

However, this correction is causing pain, especially to Wall Street investors and those who bought homes at the top of the market bubble, never expecting it to crash, always assuming they would easily be able to refinance.

Some mistakenly identify the falling home prices as the disease instead of merely a symptom – which they plan to fix with more easy credit and more liquidity to push more unqualified buyers back into the market for homes they still cannot afford.

This is akin to the drug addict identifying withdrawal symptoms as his problem and searching for another fix as his solution.  The cycle continues and the problems compound themselves.  The addiction deepens.

Addicts are told the first step to recovery is to admit their problem.  To cure this addiction to intervention we have to honestly admit the problem and once and for all, kick the habit.  That will involve some pain, without a doubt.  There is no easy, painless solution to the mess the disastrous economic interventions of the past have wrought.

The question is – do we allow some lending institutions to collapse, or do we allow the dollar to collapse?  To extend the metaphor, do we endure the temporary discomfort of withdrawal, or do we continue on until there is a fatal overdose?  We can delay the agony, but only for a little while, and then we will all end up paying the price for the mistakes of a few.

With the final passage of the Housing Bailout Bill quietly on a Saturday in the Senate, and the President’s signature, our government has unfortunately chosen the latter…

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.

Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq  will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.

For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!

Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid – all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.

Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week.

However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

As reported by CNN:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

But, of course, the debate has heightened – some state that this is just more proof that action is needed, because Iran has (and could again) have the intention to build a nuclear program. On the other side, some state that this is a slam dunk – since Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons, and thus, there’s no need to get aggressive with that country’s leadership.

So who’s right?

If we look to the Constitution, and more specifically the 10th Amendment, both sides of this argument are wrong – as far as what direction American foreign policy should take, that is.

Let’s back up a bit first.

The Constitution was written under what’s called “positive grant.” What this means is quite simple. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are positively granted to it by the Constitution. If a power is specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government can do it. And, vice versa.

This principle was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Simple, right? Well, you’d think so, but it’s in the nature of government – and politicians – to ignore any rules that limit their power. And that’s why we see both the 10th Amendment, and the entire Constitution, becoming more and more irrelevant in political discussions in Washington D.C.

So how does this apply to Iranian Nukes – or lack of them?

Well, it’s so straightforward, it’s pretty easy to miss.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the US federal government given the authority to dictate to other countries what form of offensive or defensive weapons they may possess. The Constitution clearly gives the feds the power to repel an imminent attack, but possession of a weapon, in and of itself, is not a threat of its use.

That’s why it’s so odd that there’s such a large contingent of so-called right wingers who are supporting action against Iran – supporting the disarmament of another country.

It all seems quite hypocritical. Generally, the right (or conservatives as some like to be called) supports the right of self-defense – especially as espoused by the 2nd Amendment.

While many of these people oppose criminalizing the possession of a weapon, and only support punitive measures based on how that weapon is used, they do an about face when it comes to Iran. They have no problem criminalizing the possession – rather than the use – of a weapon, and are seemingly willing to end the lives of countless thousands to enforce that “law.”

This is government power run amok – in the worst way. The disarming of Iran is just gun control taken to its natural conclusion – on a global level – where one group of armed people in a government claim the right to disarm another group of people.

“Disarming” or preventing nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government has nothing to do with maintaining peace, has nothing to do with protecting the American people, and has nothing to do with just about anything we hear from the mainstream media.

It’s about one government disarming another to ensure its own safety, its own power, and its own empire.

In a May 2005 article, former presidential candidate Harry Browne may have put it best:

No one has answered – or until now, even asked – the obvious question: Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but that Iran can’t have even a single nuclear bomb – especially when Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons?

But then, that’s the mission of TV news: to avoid asking the obvious questions.

And on top of it all, from where does the US government claim its right to determine what’s acceptable – and what’s not – as part of another country’s military arsenal?

It’s over two years later, and still no one on either side of the debate is asking these important questions.

It’s just not in their interest to do so.

More striking than this, though, was one small sentence near the end of the email – which highlighted, with a sense of pride, that American troops are based…everywhere.

we now have troops serving in 177 countries

America Supports You expects this effort to be a unifying moment for the nation, at a time in which families traditionally come together and express gratitude for things large and small that contribute to their lives.

Gratitude for empire?  Personally, I’d prefer to thank people for protecting and defending the Constitution – and refusing to take part in actions that people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would find repugnant to the ideals of a free society.

A foreign policy of non-interventionism was what the founders envisioned for this country – not endless wars, building democracies, and people “serving in 177 countries”

177 countries!
Without belaboring the point, I feel it’s essential to remember the following words of wisdom:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
-Thomas Jefferson

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Left of Right – there’s only one presidential candidate that’s calling for a foreign policy of freedom – a foreign policy based on the advice of the Founding Fathers…

That candidate is Ron Paul.