Ron Paul’s Farwell Address to Congress

Here’s a transcript of the speech.

Farewell to Congress

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor.  At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period.  My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today:  promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.


How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer.  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going.  One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.


Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.  There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved  for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady.  It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.  As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.


The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market.  It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail.  We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.


We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.  Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled.  Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy.  Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails.  There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option.  The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism.  And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future.  The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.


No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial.  The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the  one that we have  had for the  last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.  We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.  Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome.  The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.


Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need.  Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

  • Undeclared wars are commonplace.
  • Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
  • The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
  • Debt is growing exponentially.
  • The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
  • Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
  • The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
  • It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
  • Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
  • Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
  • Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
  • Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
  • Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.



Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

  • Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
  • Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
  • Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
  • Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
  • Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
  • Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
  • Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
  • Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
  • Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
  • Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
  • Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
  • Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
  • Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
  • Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
  • Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
  • Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
  • Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
  • Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
  • Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
  • Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
  • Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
  • Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
  • Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
  • Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
  • Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
  • Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
  • Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
  • Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
  • Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?
  • Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
  • Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
  • Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?   Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes.  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems.  Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.


Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves.  Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.  The blame is shared by both political parties.  Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop.  Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.  The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.  Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats.  This replaces the confidence in a free society.  Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they,   armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.  This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.


Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace.  Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.  Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.  Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal.  The good results sought never materialize.  The new problems created require even more government force as a solution.  The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government  uses force  for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.


No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.  Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.


The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China.  I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.


Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

  1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
  2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.


The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis.  It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power.  Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.”  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise.  What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.  And the results speak for themselves.


A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence.  It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.  Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified.  This is similar to what we were once told that:  “destroying a village to save a village” was justified.  It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people.  And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.  The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government.   Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.  If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority.  It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs.  As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs.  They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer   just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs.  All moral standards become relative.  Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth.  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.  It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.  Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.


Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.  The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.  The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt.  The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time.  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due.  This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending.  Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.  Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of  personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.  The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.  Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.



What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.               

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.                                                         

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.                                        

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.                                               

 5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.                                                     

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression.  The retort to such a suggestion is always:  it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.  It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.  The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.  The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time.  It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow.  This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society.  If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.


Repeal of the 5th Amendment

“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 5th Amendment

I want to tell you all a story. There once was a country which was a country which fought two wars, and declared those wars over and went on to occupy those foreign nations with military personal. These occupying military force was constantly being attacked, and the media showed images, and told stories of, what was going on in those foreign nations. Many people came to dislike this situation and wanted to bring the troops back home.

These wars were going on with Commander-In-Chief’s permission. This CIC was known for violating people’s civil liberties, i.e. activities that citizens are protected from the governments interference, and torturing people. This CIC would use the Patriot Act, which repealed the 4th amendment. People did not like the occupations of other nations and with the violation of people’s civil liberties.

So someone ran to be CIC, and they promised to change the way things were done. They promised to bring all of our military personal occupying those foreign nations back home. They even promised to repeal the Patriot Act by letting it expire, they promised to repeal the repeal of the 4th amendment. But, sadly, this person who ran on Hope and Change, eventually succumbed to doing the same things, but taking it one step further.

This person who talked like a Dove ended up being a Hawk. This person continues the repeal of the 4th amendment and takes it further than his predecessor. Than, once he has taken away that civil liberty and exercises violation of people’s civil liberties with the seizing your property and body without judicial oversight, they can now kill you without judicial oversight. This is what has happened as of late with the CIC exercising this power, and it being front page news a major news outlet.

It is surprising how people do not talk about this much. Probably not talking about it much because this CIC will continue his predecessors tactics of having reporters arrested who report on events they don’t like. What makes it interesting is that we now have someone with the power to seize your body without judicial oversight and they can kill you without judicial oversight. It has gotten so bad that the CIC has a list of people on which either one of these things would happen to. This appears to be some of those powers in which the founders warned against.

Interesting how someone runs to restore your protected civil liberties, but instead takes another one of your civil liberties and intensifies the degree of violation of your civil liberties. This is the person that many people personally look upon favorably.

Entitlements Are Not Rights Opinion Piece

Interesting opinion piece from a newspaper. My slight edits will be in [brackets]

“Some people fail to grasp the simplest of concepts: We have a Bill of Rights. It spells out exactly the rights you have. And guess what? You don’t have a right to a home. You don’t have a right to three meals a day. You don’t have a right to a car. You don’t have a right to a college education. You don’t have a right to credit. And you don’t have the right of cradle to grave health care paid for by somebody else.

If you are disabled, there are already [federal] programs in place, some constitutionally questionable, that will help you out. But the majority of people in this country draw the line when the [federal] government tries to mandate that you have to purchase something or face a fine so they can make sure all people, be it of their own fault or not, are taken care of.

If you want to give to charities to care of everybody in this country, you are free to do so. If you are asked by your religion to give a certain amount of your income to your church, you are free to do so. But you are also free to not be demanded to give to charity if you wish not to.

And finally, if you don’t like the way this country is set up, and would rather pay a mandatory tax to government to make sure all your neighbors are taken care of, you are free to leave at any time. That’s what makes this country great.”

The only thing in the Bill of Rights which would be contrary to this, or even leaves open the possibility, is the 9th amendment.


Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, and Hypocrite

Now, I am not sure if some of you know, but President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize before he was really even President of the United States of America. It is interesting how someone can win the Nobel peace prize without doing one thing that actually deserves it besides words. But all this is fine and good, but the most interesting thing is what was said when giving that speech. In that speech he happened to bring up something interesting, which shows some hypocrisy on his part.

Barack Obama says, “I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”
Now you might not be aware of this, but the US signed a treaty that was called the Geneva Convention. This prevents those nations who signed it from torturing others, besides basic human rights. But here is the kicker, President Obama, and Eric Holder, have said that water-boarding was torture. And yet the American government took part in it, and there are international laws against it. And yet President Obama did not send these people who broke the law to face an international trial like was done with the Nuremberg trials against the Nazi’s. Yet President Obama protected and forgave all those who performed the torture. They were protected from international law.
A foreign nation tried to have those who committed torture to face trial. But President Obama prevented these people from facing trial. So President Obama prevented the “regimes that break the rules” from being held accountable, and protecting them. What does that mean when a person says this at the Nobel Peace Prize is not being held to by his own administration. What makes it even worse is that President Obama is killing people in other nations without the permission of that nation. This is again a violation of international law, and Federal law. So where are the sanctions that was talked about in this peace prize speech? Nowhere. Where is the peace? Nowhere.
Can you honestly trust this person when he does not follow through in what he said during campaigns, let alone to the international community, and worse of all when said to defend the US Constitution and execute federal law?

Testimony Of Michael A. Carvin on Citizens United

Here is a copy of part of the presentation that Michael A. Carvin presented to the Senate Judicial Committee looks at Citizens United Decision. It basically talks about the first amendment, which involves freedom of speech/press and peaceably assemble and petition representative with grievances, and its involvement in the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.

“Notwithstanding the hyperbolic and misleading criticism it has engendered, Citizens United is nothing more than a straightforward, faithful application of fundamental First Amendment principles. The speech involved in Citizens United was pure political speech regarding elections and the democratic process, the kind of speech at the very core of the First Amendment. Therefore, any restrictions on that speech must satisfy the most daunting constitutional standards. Citizens United fairly applied those standards to protect the rights of individuals to participate in independent political speech regardless of whether they choose to join their political voices together in a corporate form.

The predominant criticism of Citizens Untied is the simplistic and meaningless slogan that “corporations are not people.” As a factual matter, this slogan completely misstates the entities actually protected by Citizens United and, as a legal matter, is wholly irrelevant. The “corporations” predominantly silenced by the restrictions were not large, for-profit corporations but were non-profit “corporations,” like Citizens United, comprised of citizens who had united to express their collective views on policy issues and public elections. These “corporations” included the likes of the Center for American Progress, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Progressive Donor Network. The Government has no more power to ban these united citizens’ collective, shared viewpoint than it does to ban the speech of the individuals comprising this united front. Indeed, Citizens United enhanced the voice of those groups relative to wealthy corporations. As the Court noted, these small non-profit corporations can be particularly hard-hit by a ban on independent advocacy because, when legal corporate lobbying and a corporate independent-expenditure ban are coupled, the result may be “that smaller or non-profit corporations cannot raise a voice to object when other corporations, including those with vast wealth, are cooperating with the Government.” Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 907 (2010).

In all events, it is quite irrational to suggest that corporations—profit or non-profit—have no First Amendment rights or that a ban on corporate expenditures to convey election-related speech is any different than a direct ban on political speech. No rational person would argue that a law restricting the speech of the New York Times or MSNBC, such as one requiring them to endorse Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney), would be constitutional, even though the speakers are nothing more than for-profit corporations. That basic principle is true regardless of whether the corporate speech is banned directly, or in the form of a prohibition on spending money—on printing presses or broadcast facilities—to disseminate that speech, since all public speech necessarily requires the expenditure of money. Accordingly, advocates of the mindless bromide that corporations have no First Amendment rights must explain why such restrictions on media corporations—those with the greatest access to the political marketplace and thus best positioned to “drown out” contrary voices—would be unconstitutional, but identical restrictions on non-media corporations are somehow permissible. There is no rational support for such an illogical argument, which is one of the many reasons why the Supreme Court has always consistently held that for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights, including the right to speak on election-related issues. See First National Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).

This basic principle is also mandated by the text and purpose of the First Amendment. First, the notion that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects only “people” or “individuals” is belied by the plain language of that Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” without limiting this protection to “individuals” or “persons.” It thus prohibits any restriction on speech, regardless of the source. Again, this reflects the Framers’ understanding that the right to free speech is not limited to certain speakers and is certainly not unprotected because it emanates from a group of individuals who have banned together in order to enhance their collective voice. While “unions” are not people, their speech is protected by the First Amendment because they are a united group of people, even though, unlike non-profit corporations, they are not united for political or public advocacy purposes.

Nevertheless, some argue that for-profit corporations (and unions) can be singled out for discriminatory treatment because their speech will be heard by too many people. But speaker-based discrimination for the avowed purpose of limiting certain speakers’ access to the marketplace of ideas is obviously at war with the fundamental tenets of the First Amendment. That Amendment guarantees access to the marketplace of ideas free from government control because such speech is an inalienable right that cannot be limited by government fiat and certainly not in order to advance the inherently paternalistic notion that government can apportion the people’s access to diverse viewpoints. In a unanimous opinion joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 (1976) succinctly stated this basic truism: “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements in our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” Id. at 48-49.

The conclusion that our democracy functions best with more speech rather than less speech is correct not only as a matter of law, but also as a matter of experience. Notwithstanding recent uniformed and irresponsible speculation, corporate expenditures and speech in the wake of Citizens United have not overtaken the political marketplace or drowned out speech by individuals acting alone. To the contrary, recent election cycles have seen an explosion of political participation and contributions by individual voters, and no cognizable uptick in corporate political activity.

I am not aware of any major, for-profit corporation running a single political advertisement in its own name. And the data from the 2012 Republican Presidential primary elections completely refutes the overheated rhetoric that corporations are taking over the political world. Each of the eight leading Republican Presidential candidates was supported by an independent expenditure-only committee—the so-called Super PACs. Notwithstanding the fears of some that wealthy for-profit corporations would dominate politics, we now know from the disclosures filed with the FEC that not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies contributed a single cent to any of these eight Super PACs. See Br. Amicus Curiae of Senator Mitch McConnell at 7, American Traditional Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, No. 11-1179 (filed Apr. 26, 2012). The data reflects that the Super PACs supporting three of the eight candidates received no corporate donations at all and six of the eight received none from public companies. So the much-predicted tsunami of corporate expenditures never came. See id. at 10.

As Bradley Smith, a former chair of the FEC, has correctly noted, “[t]his is our second election under Citizens United . . . In 2010, turnout was up from 2006, we had more competitive races than at almost any time in recent memory.” Interview by Lee Pacchia of Bloomberg Law with Bradley Smith, Former Chair, Federal Election Commission (Jan. 5, 2012).

This outcome was entirely predictable. For years, states have been acting as laboratories experimenting with various levels of restrictions or no restrictions at all on corporate independent political expenditures. At the time Citizens United was decided, 26 states imposed no limits at all on the amount of independent expenditures by for-profit corporations. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 908. Yet there was and is no basis to conclude that corporate spending in those states—which included states rarely associated with scandals, such as Virginia, Washington, and Utah—had overwhelmed other political voices or corrupted the political process. The same is true today in the world where Citizens United protects the right to independent political speech by individuals who decide to unify their voices in a corporation.”

Commentary on Elizabeth Warren’s “You didn’t Build that”

There is a talk that this woman named Elizabeth Warren, who is part of the Democratic party and was the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, i.e. TARP.

She was recorded at a some gathering of individuals, and was recorded saying a couple of things. One of them is very much in line with this “You didn’t Build that” type of mentality. Now I want to focus on particle part, which sums up the position of “You didn’t Build that” type of mentality.

Elizabeth Warren says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.  You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear.  You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look.  You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Now she admits that someone built a factory. Now what does she say to justify the you didn’t build that idea? Well you used roads that the rest of people paid for, in order to sell the goods from what you built.

There is a very interesting Supreme Court case called Plessy v. Ferguson. In that case, an opinion by Justice J. Haring was recorded as dissenting with the “Separate but Equal” idea. In the case of dissenting, he happens to quote something that is related to this roads idea of “you didn’t build that”.

Mr. Justice Strong in Olcott v. The Supervisors: “That railroads, though constructed by private corporations and owned by them, are public highways has been the doctrine of nearly all the courts ever since such conveniences for passage and transportation have had any existence. Very early the question arose whether a State’s right of eminent domain could be exercised by a private corporation created for the purpose of constructing a railroad. Clearly it could not unless taking land for such a purpose by such an agency is taking land for public use. The right of eminent domain nowhere justifies taking property for a private use. Yet it is a doctrine universally accepted that a state legislature may authorize a private corporation to take land for the construction of such a road, making compensation to the owner. What else does this doctrine mean if not that building a railroad, though it be built by a private corporation, is an act done for a public use.”

Another point is made, while quoting another court case, basically stated that “…the real and personal property necessary to the establishment and management of the railroad is vested in the corporation…”

The key point that is being made is that the railroads were built by private corporations, built by private individuals. In fact, lots of production on private rail roads were based on an economic bubble. Private investors were putting lots of money into laying down rail-road tracks and obtaining the private land from individuals and some from the government taking it through eminent domain. There was exponential growth in the building of the railroad infrastructure by private individuals and corporations, and eventually with that the economic bubble burst. Many of those private corporations, individuals, who invested in that infrastructure and railroads went broke. But they left something behind in the infrastructure of the railroads.

Another private corporation, or a few, came in and bought up lots of this land and railroads. They now provide the service or product. They took up all the infrastructure left behind. The same thing happened with telephone wires. Lots of private individuals invested in those things, but they failed because they invested lots of money on infrastructure when there were not many consumers, or private individuals, who could afford the service or even wanted it in the first place. But the infrastructure is what was left from these private investments. These failed private investments. But another private corporation came along and bought up most of the infrastructure at a later time. This private corporation was Western Union. Western Union didn’t pay for most of the telephone wires and poles, if any, but they did pay to obtain them at a later time. Another private corporation buying up on the private investment of another private corporation.

So when you hear people talking about this roads type, never forget that they were first built by private corporations and private individuals. They laid the ground work for these “public goods” or “public services”. They made the investments, they took the risks of failing, and we benefited from it. We benefited from their success and benefited from their failure. But this is not all. Everyone pays for it with taxes. They pay for it when they use transportation taxes like a gas tax. They pay for it when they go through a toll road. So they laid the foundation out of their own money, but also pay to keep it up with their own money. We only payed to keep it up after they started it on their own. Only after they took the initiative, after they took the risk. We co-invested with them after they got it up and running.

They built it, we liked it, we all pay to keep it.

Now there is another reason that I brought up Plessy v. Ferguson, which deals with something else that Warren said in her talk. But first let me quote some more from the dissenting opinion of J. Harlan. “But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” (Sentences in bold are my emphasis)

Now if you do not know, Plessy v. Ferguson created the doctrine known as “Separate but Equal”, and Justice J. Harlan dissented from the idea of “Separate but Equal”. The ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was later overthrown by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown v. Board of Education, the opinion of the court overturned Separate but Equal, and understood it to mean that “equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.” Now “facilities” were things basically like bathrooms, building safety, and other raw goods.

Elizabeth Warren, “My favorite part of looking at this hole, we got in this hole, one billion dollars, uh, one trillion dollars, on tax cuts for the rich under George Bush.  We got into this hole two trillion dollars on two wars that were put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay off.  And we got into this hole one trillion on a Medicare drug program that was not paid for and was 40% more expensive than its needs to be because it was a giveaway to the drug companies.  That’s just four trillion right there. So part of the way you fix this problem is don’t do those things! I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no!”

I am not concerned with what lead to the economic condition that came about in 2007 with the Housing Bubble. So her talking points with that are of no concern to what follows. Now Warren is specifically talking about the rich, those “tax cuts for the rich under George Bush.” Now the rich were paying less than they did from Bill Clinton. They payed less of a percentage of their income with Bush than they did in comparison to when Clinton was POTUS.

Person A has 30% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President X.
Person B has 10% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President X.

Person A has 20% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President Y.
Person B has 5% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President Y.

Warrens complaint is that one “class” of people are paying less in income tax than they did before, or could be taxed on. She wants one specific class of people to have more of their personal income taken than another class of people have taken out of theirs. But, of course, this would not be unequal because they are separate but equal. All people in Class A pay the exact same income tax percentage. All people in Class B pay the exact same income tax percentage. So no individual in Class A is paying more in income tax percentage than any other individual in Class A, and vice versa with Class B. Now the class of A and B are separate, but they are equal. Every person in Class A pay the same income tax of 20%, and every person in Class B pay the same income tax of 5%, but both classes don’t pay the same income tax percentage. They are separate but equal.

Separate and Equal:
Person A, who makes 100,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays a 30% income tax; Person A will pay $30,000 dollars in income tax.
Person B, who makes 50,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person B will pay $5,000 dollars in income tax.

Equal and not Separate:
Person A, who makes 100,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person A will pay $10,000 dollars in income tax.
Person B, who makes 50,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person A will pay 5,000 dollars in income tax.

Notice that when equal and not separate, both Americans pay their “fair share”, but one group of Americans are still paying more when they pay their “fair share”. But their fair share is the same as every other American. In fact, the richer you get, the more of an exponential growth in the amount of money you will give up, based on that income percentage of their personal income still being the same. To create a play off of what J. Hardlan said in his opinion, “Our Constitution is economically blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. The poorest is the equal of the richest.” But Elizabeth Warren appears to care little about “fair share”, let alone “Equality”. She prefers to think that the rich are similar to blacks of the olden times, Separate but Equal under the law. Different laws and regulations apply to the rich that do not apply to the non-rich, like different laws and regulations applied to white people that did not apply to the non-white people. She just prefers to discriminate based on economic status instead of race status, but discrimination nonetheless.