by Ron Paul

Although Congress was back in session for scarcely more than a day last week, private citizens across the country managed to cause an uproar felt across Capitol Hill. The uproar took the form of hundreds of thousands of phone calls to both Senators and Representatives, urging them to oppose two draconian new bills that threaten the free and unbridled flow of information on the internet.

On Wednesday last week, dozens of prominent websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Craigslist, were blacked out in protest of two bills known in DC jargon as SOPA and PIPA. SOPA is the House bill; PIPA is its Senate companion. These bills ostensibly will combat internet piracy, and of course we also are told they will help us wage the never ending “war on terror.”

What these bills actually do is force website owners to police the internet; create entry barriers to the only relatively free and open medium of communication; and threaten to break the technological structure of the internet itself. They also violate our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and our 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

SOPA and PIPA have been drafted not only without respect for the Constitution, but also without an understanding of the how the internet works. These bills attack the very system upon which the entire orderly organization of the web depends. Search engines, internet service providers, advertising sites, and sites with user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter–all magnificent creations of the market– are directly threatened by these bills. They will be held responsible if even a single of their millions of users posts even one link to a website that a copyright holder claims is violating a copyright.

Note that under the bills as written, the Department of Justice or a copyright holder do not have to prove that their copyright was violated– they simply have to claim copyright infringement and an entire site is shut down. The burden of these regulations on the internet will be enormous, shifting resources away from productivity and innovation and into monitoring and censoring. It turns internet companies into involuntary tools for Big Brother government, further eroding our Constitutional rights.

As is typical of so many bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA were not crafted to make life better for the American people, but rather were written at the behest of big business trying to enlist the federal government as its strong-arm. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America spent more than $1.2 million so far lobbying for their passage.

But the internet community is fighting back effectively, not just with websites that went black but with millions of users who expressed their solidarity. Congressional sponsors of both bills have been jumping ship in response to the outrage. The House Judiciary Committee canceled the SOPA hearing they were planning to hold last Wednesday; the House leadership announced they have no intention of considering this bill; and at the end of the week Senator Reid announced he was postponing the vote until a “compromise” could be reached. The American people are speaking, and with their continued grassroots efforts the marketplace for free ideas and communication will prevail over government controls and censorship.

by Ron Paul

If you thought the “Transportation Security Administration” would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again. The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation’s highways, waterways, and railroads as well. TSA launched a new campaign of random checkpoints on Tennessee highways last week, complete with a sinister military-style acronym–VIP(E)R—as a name for the program.

As with TSA’s random searches at airports, these roadside searches are not based on any actual suspicion of criminal activity or any factual evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by those detained. They are, in effect, completely random. So first we are told by the U.S. Supreme Court that American citizens have no 4th amendment protections at border crossings, even when standing on U.S. soil. Now TSA takes the next logical step and simply detains and searches U.S. citizens at wholly internal checkpoints.

The slippery slope is here. When does it end? How many more infringements on our liberties, our property, and our basic human rights to travel freely will it take before people become fed up enough to demand respect from their government? When will we demand that the government heed obvious constitutional limitations, and stop treating ordinary Americans as criminal suspects in the absence of probable cause?

The real tragedy occurs when Americans incrementally become accustomed to this treatment on the roads just as they have become accustomed to it in the airports. We already accept arriving at the airport 2 or more hours before a flight to get through security; will we soon have to build in an extra 2 or 3 hours into our road trips to allow for checkpoint traffic?

Worse, some people are lulled into a false sense of security and are actually grateful for this added police presence! Should we really hail the expansion of the police state as an enhancement to safety? I submit that an attitude of acquiescence to TSA authority is thoroughly dangerous, un-American, and insulting to earlier freedom-loving generations who built this country.

I am certain people will complain about this, once they have to sit in stopped traffic for a few extra hours to allow for random searches of cars. However, I am also certain it merely will take another “foiled” plot to silence many people into gladly accepting more government mismanagement of safety.

Vigilant, observant, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defend themselves and stop crimes every day before police can respond. That is the source of real security in America: the 2nd Amendment right to defend oneself. The answer is for people to be empowered to protect themselves. Yet how many weapons might these checkpoints confiscate? Even when individual go through all the legal hoops of licensing and permits, the chances of harassment or outright confiscation of weapons and detention of citizens when those weapons are found at a TSA checkpoint is extremely high.

Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer. Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.

by Ron Paul

According to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.

Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law. Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.

Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary – not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.

Al-Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

Read the full article.

Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence

by Ron Paul

Recent incidents of violence in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home, as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in American cities. This is why Congress must view the economy as its first priority and a matter of national security. Unless and until we get our fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue to deteriorate.

The fundamental lesson every American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. But Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas. But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass killers.

Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened these tragedies. We should remember that theft, arson and property damage were not the only criminal acts in London. Innocent bystanders were assaulted and killed as well. In those instances, deadly force used in self-defense would have been fully justified.

Perhaps the only good that could come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. This means frankly that we must own and wisely use firearms to deter or prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons. It is absurd to think police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the clock.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government “do something.” This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt and a loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety; freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference – unless they use force or fraud against others. Government cannot create a world without risk, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Transcript

Megyn Kelly: Just when you thought airport security couldn’t get anymore unbearable, well guess what? Prepare for even more scrutiny now. The TSA warning that terrorists are seriously considering a new tactic, surgically implanting explosive devices. It could mean big changes in the screening procedures again and chances are, they won’t be less intrusive. Texas Republican Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, and he is introducing the American traveler dignity act saying we should completely replace the TSA with private security firms. Good morning or good afternoon I should say, Congressman. I’m used to saying good morning on Fox & Friends, sorry about that.

Ron Paul: Okay, good afternoon.

Megyn Kelly: So you are introducing this new plan to privatize, I guess what’s now known as the TSA. How would that make it better?

Ron Paul: Well it would make it efficient, there’s no history to show that government bureaucrats are ever more efficient than the private market. But there’s two different ways how you privatize something. If you just take the airport security and the government hires out private firms, that’s not for me privatization. That’s sort of a combination of big business and big government and that doesn’t solve the problem. The responsibility should be on the airlines, just as it’s on the responsibility of the owners of chemical plants and the owners of armored cars. They take charge of that and they do a very, very good job.

And the government was in charge of security before 9/11. They did a lousy job. They prohibited guns from being on airplane and they said “nobody should resist.” And so we set the stage for 9/11. So I want the owners to assume responsibility and the burden would be on the airlines and it would save the taxpayer an awful lot of money.

Megyn Kelly: So if I run an airline right now, tell me if I’m right or wrong. I don’t think I like this plan because what’s it going to cost me?

Ron Paul: Well that’s the reason we don’t have it. The airlines are in bed with the government, they’re partners with the government. They don’t want the liability and they don’t want the responsibility. But they should have it. Yes it’ll cost them money and you’ll have to pay for it with a higher ticket but you’ll pay lower taxes. But they’ll do a better job and it’s going to be so much more efficient. They’re not going to take X-rays of you in the nude, and they’re not going to prod and poke you. They’re not going to prod and poke little kids and 95-year-old women. They’re going to figure it out because they got to treat them like customers. So that’s all the difference in the world.

Megyn Kelly: But Congressman Paul, you’re on Capitol Hill. You know that there’s a lot of waste of taxpayer dollars. Are you just assuming that if we privatize this that all the tax dollars that were going to the TSA would suddenly be given back to us?

Ron Paul: Well it should be, you can’t assume anything with the politicians and the bureaucrats because they always figure out a way to keep it there, they’re endless and if they don’t get enough then they go to the Fed and they get the Fed to do their bailing out. So it’s outrageous, it’s totally out of control. But you have to make the effort; you have to make the suggestion, what is the alternative? If you can’t depend on government, whom should you depend on? I say depend on the market, private owners take much better care of the property than government has ever done.

Megyn Kelly: Well let me tell you about some of the enhanced security measures that are now going to apparently go into place with the TSA because of these reports about surgically implanted bombs from Al-Qaeda. Here it is: more behavior detection officers, more airport interviews and pat downs, in addition, in an effort to detect traces of explosives, passenger’s skin and clothing may be swabbed. Is that what you’re talking about?

Ron Paul: Well I think that’s an outrage I mean horrible, if the private airlines were doing it, they might have one sniff dog that knows something about explosives and that’s all you would need, you don’t need all this other stuff, no it’s going to cost a lot more money and I’ve said and I sincerely believe this, if the American people can look at these pictures on TV about what they do to 95-year-old women, what they do to little kids and the groping of the groins and if the American people say, “Oh that’s okay with me” I tell you what, we’re in a lot worse shape than I think we’re in. I think we’ve given up, if we accept that, we’re in bad trouble.

Megyn Kelly: Right, well, as you know the argument is that a lot of Americans are okay with that because they feel like in this day and age since 9/11 they might have to give up a liberty, I’m just saying that’s the other side of the equation here to keep everyone safe. Before you go, I got to get this question in though, if you privatize airport screening and security, how does profiling fit into that?

Ron Paul: Well they’re allowed to, because a private company has an obligation, if you don’t like the airline and they do too much profiling then you don’t fly on that airline. But today there are not a lot of profiles, so a 95-year-old woman get’s treated like a terrorist and somebody else who really looks like he could, that guy I might want to ask him two question, oh well, we can’t’ ask him as many question, matter of fact I even back off because he looks sort of suspicious. No, a private airline has a right to be suspicious and they can in a way, but if they overdo that they’re going to have a bad reputation and the customers are going to make sure that they hear about it.

Megyn Kelly: Very interesting. Let us know how your new plan, the American traveler dignity act, let us know if it’s successful or not. Congressman Ron Paul always great to see you. Thanks so much, have a good weekend.

Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuses by saying “I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security.” In fact, they are giving up their liberties and not receiving security in return. Time and time again we see the revolting pictures of federal screeners with their hands down the pants of children while parents watch helplessly in agony. We see elderly or disabled Americans being forced to endure all manner of indignity. At the same time, we repeatedly hear of passengers who seem to check all the boxes marked “suspicious activity” slipping through unencumbered. Just recently we read of a Nigerian immigrant breezing through TSA security checks to board a flight from New York to LA — with a stolen, expired boarding pass and an out-of-date student ID as his sole identification. We should not be surprised to find government ineptitude and indifference at the TSA, however.

What we ultimately need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the “guidance” of the federal government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.

To move us in that direction, I am today introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that any federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues in the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation.

by Ron Paul

The press reports are horrifying: 95 year-old women humiliated; children molested; disabled people abused; men and women subjected to unwarranted groping and touching of their most private areas; involuntary radiation exposure. If the perpetrators were a gang of criminals, their headquarters would be raided by SWAT teams and armed federal agents. Unfortunately, in this case the perpetrators are armed federal agents. This is the sorry situation ten years after the creation of the Transportation Security Administration.

The requirement that Americans be forced to undergo this appalling treatment simply for the “privilege” of traveling in their own country reveals much about how the federal government feels about our liberties. The unfortunate fact that we put up with this does not speak well for our willingness to stand up to an abusive government.

Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuse by saying “I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security.” In fact, they are giving up their liberties and not receiving security in return. Last week, for example, just days after an elderly cancer victim was forced to submit to a cruel and pointless TSA search, including removal of an adult diaper, a Nigerian immigrant somehow managed stroll through TSA security checks and board a flight from New York to LA — with a stolen, expired boarding pass and an out-of-date student ID as his sole identification! He was detained and questioned, only to be released to do it again 5 days later! We should not be surprised to find government ineptitude and indifference at the TSA.

At the time the TSA was being created I strongly opposed federalization of airline security. As I wrote in an article back in 2001:

“Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security. The free market can and does produce excellent security in many industries. Many security-intensive industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies. In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.”

What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the “guidance” of the federal government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.

In the meantime, this week I am introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues in the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: marijuana). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Judge Napolitano: Tonight on The Docket, the economy, oil, and personal freedom. The DOW plunged early today amid a slew of troubling news on the economy. It did come back at the end of the day on news that the deal is closer on a bailout in Greece. But here at home, the International Energy Agency said it would release 60 million barrels of oil, 30 million of which are coming from America’s strategic petroleum reserve. The stated purpose: to ease the oil shortages in Libya. The move is surprising, because Libya doesn’t produce that much oil. And oil prices have already been falling over the past month. So why this sudden move, and will this market manipulation pay off, or is it just a political ploy to please voters? More on that later in the show. Also, troubling Wall Street today is news that House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and Senate minority Rep John Kyl, both walked out of the deficit reduction negotiations with Vice-President Biden. Could this mark the beginning of the end of the Vice-President’s talks? And without these key Republicans, can a bi-partisan deal be reached? Add to all that, the Republicans in the House who want the United States out of the war in Libya, and add to that, a new bi-partisan move to legalize marijuana. Here now to tell us more of what all this means, for the fate of the nation’s debt ceiling, for our foreign policy, and for personal freedom, is Texas Republican Congressman, Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, a lot to talk about, it’s a pleasure, welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge, it’s good to be with you.

Judge Napolitano: Let’s start with what happened not too far from where you are today. How do you read the Republican’s politely but firmly leaving these negotiations that the administration put together in an effort to cut some deal that would persuade people in the Congress that it’s actually a good thing to raise the debt ceiling and let the government put us deeper into debt?

Ron Paul: I’m not a bit surprised, I would have predicted that would happen, because the problems we face are so overwhelming and some people just aren’t willing to cut the spending and some people just want to raise taxes, and they’re at logger heads. So that’s why this is going to continue and we’re going to continue to have our economic problems.

Judge Napolitano: In your view, do your Republican colleagues in the House have the personal and political courage simply to say to the President and the Treasury Secretary, “No, we’re not going to authorize you to borrowing another 2.4 trillion dollars. You’ve borrowed and spent enough, we don’t trust you to spend less. The only way you will keep the government living within its means, is if we make it unlawful for you to borrow”. You think that will happen, or is this a pipe dream that I have?

Ron Paul: Ah, you’re back to dreaming again, Judge, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think there is going to be a lot of debate up to the final moment, and then there’ll be a decision and the Republicans will get something. There’ll be some promises, and they’ll say, “Okay, yes we really will. We will cut some spending”. And maybe they’ll even cave in a little bit on taxes, but they won’t call it raising taxes. It will be called “tax reform” or something to get more revenues, and that would be different. I think something will happen. I think they will frighten the members of Congress enough to say that a default, which is the default on paying interests on our securities, is so, so devastating. But what they won’t admit to is we default continuously; we’ve been that way for many, many decades, because we just pay off our debt through cheap money. And the Fed, as a matter of fact, I think is looking forward to more inflation so that the real debt goes down by the depreciation of our money.

Judge Napolitano: Most of your Republican colleagues who’ve come on Freedom Watch have indicated to us that a tax increase is dead-on-arrival on the House. Are you suggesting that the Republican leadership might somehow raise taxes, but not call it a tax increase?

Ron Paul: Well, they’ve done that before. It will be reform and I’ve heard things like that; they cut some here and cut some here. So when we look at those bills in my office when we have to do it, we add and subtract. You get the benefit here and a subtraction here and, of course, my rule is that there is no net new revenue. But sometimes they’ll make the bill very complicated and hard to figure out because, well, they’re giving a tax break here, but they’re closing loopholes. You know, they close loopholes, but you don’t raise taxes. So I think they’re quite capable of doing that, the Republicans have done that in the past. But I’m hoping they stick to their guns, and with the help of the freshmen, maybe we will. But I’m still predicting that they will raise the debt limit, they will not go down to the wire and default in the way they argue that they might.

Judge Napolitano: I’m sorry to hear that, but obviously you have your thumb on the pulse of what your colleagues are talking about. I want to switch gears: how is it that the unlikely pair of Ron Paul and Barney Frank came together to propose legislation to keep the federal government out of the issue of marijuana and to leave it to the states.

Ron Paul: Well, actually I’ve done this for a long time. I’ve worked with Barney Frank on auditing the Fed and some other things, and then for cutting some of the military budget. So on this issue, we have worked together. It’s got a little bit more attention this time, but I think I like the way you worded it, because it’s not taking a national control of an issue and saying all states will do it. What we are really doing is returning it to the states and trying to treat marijuana like we treat alcohol and maybe we wouldn’t have quite so many people imprisoned and that would be a little bit adaptable. One thing that has strongly motivated me with the marijuana issue, is I am convinced that there have been a lot of people helped medically by taking marijuana where ordinary drugs haven’t helped. Because if a person has cancer or they’re on chemotherapy, many, many people have told me they’ve been greatly helped. But isn’t it a shame that if you have a loved one that’s dying of cancer, and I’ve come across these cases, and I always say, “You know, maybe the marijuana would help them”. So what are you going to do? Tell him to go out and find it. It’s so sad. So I think we should have a little bit of compassion on this issue, follow the constitution. The difficult problems can be solved at the state level.

Judge Napolitano: I am understand that at the Republican caucus today, or wherever the Republicans get together on the House to speak, there is some strong energy there to enforce the constitution with respect to Libya; that President can’t start a war on his own, whether the War Powers Act is constitutional or not, he must at least comply with the laws that have been written. Question: Is there going to be a move on the floor of the House of Representatives in the next few days to force the president to take the troops out of Libya.

Ron Paul: We’re going to have some votes tomorrow and so far I don’t see that type of resolution, which is the right one; take the troops out and deny all funding. Matter of fact, there is one that sort of follows McCain’s proposal and grant him authority to do exactly what he’s doing and be explicit, that will not pass, I believe. I don’t believe there are the votes for that. But then there is another one that sounds good and it’s said that we can’t use any funds except 4, and they list 4 things that they’re already doing. So it’s a trick piece of legislation and it actually pretends they’re doing something but it is an authorization for the president to keep doing exactly what he’s doing and, hopefully, we can stop that. But on the surface a lot of people are assuming, “Well, this looks like a good piece of legislation”. It’s not the McCain approach of endorsing the whole notion, it is a statement of denial, and at the same time the exceptions are endorsing exactly what the President’s doing. So I hope the Congress does not pass that tomorrow.

Judge Napolitano: Sounds like a trick to me. Keep them honest. Congressman, it’s always a pleasure, thanks for joining us.

Ron Paul: Thanks a lot.

Judge Napolitano: Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, met…