 things have made this problem much worse. One thing is, not only do we not look to the Constitution just this past week, Panetta and Donalds, and we seem to be very proud of the fact that our President now is being explicit about this and he says that he can get the authority from the UN and NATO. And when he was quizzed by this, he says, oh, well we will inform the Congress. That means we will inform the people when they feel like it. And that is not right. That is not the rule of law. And that has to be reversed. We will not be fighting any unconstitutional, undeclared wars that we don't need to be involved. In the past 10 years, it has been declared that we should go to war as a preemptive thing, preemptive war. You know what that really means? That means aggression. That means you're going into a country and bombing and attacking them and occupying them because someday they might do harm to us. But that is not the way it should be at all. Preemptive war, preventive war, that is not part of what our traditions are. So we have to change that whole attitude. Defense is one thing, but preemption is not a proper defensive policy at all. We're running an entitlement system, printing money and having problems at home, and also fighting these wars overseas. It tends to set the stage for people to go to sleep about protecting their own liberties. You know, like I said about our military, very, very powerful. Nobody gets a nice awake at night worrying about who's going to invade us, you know? Who's going to put tanks on our borders? Who's going to bomb bombs into our country? But what we need to be concerned about, you know, we take an oath to evade the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic as well. Right, so taking away our pride. The foreigners aren't making us cast a patriot act. We're doing it to ourselves. But I would say that when the Republic returns, when you know we're making progress, we will repeal the patriot act. But that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens. So where does he get the authority? And he was asked about it, and he said, well, it's part of the Constitution. His explanation about the Constitution is that anything that is not prohibited, he's allowed to do. But you know he hasn't sort of upside down. He is only allowed to do the things that he said explicitly, authorized to do it. Or to assassinate American citizens. And he was like, well, that's not what he's only done it a couple of times. And he was probably a bad guy. But you know, it's the principle, obviously, of what counts. Because we all want to be treated the same way in courts and not designated by the President or whoever. He was associated with the wrong people. But he was never charged with anything. He was never given a trial. He didn't even have an attorney. But he was being a guy and they were going to do it and they killed him. So they said family member was also an accomplice that they had to go get him. So a week later, they bombed and killed his son. His son was 16 years old out in the backyard bargeing. Now that is not American justice. That's American. Bargeing was something that was very, very dangerous. And the President certainly didn't resist this. But the Congress passed a bill, passed again on January 1st of this year. And that bill was the National Defense Authorization Act. It deals closely with commentators. And it says explicitly that now the federal, the U.S. military, the Army can arrest any American citizen. Put in a prison and deny an attorney no charges, made no trial in a secret prison indefinitely because you're a risk to the state. You know, I've been called dangerous at the time. The dangerous to establishment. It's been undermined. But even before these last couple years, even before 9-11, we've had an undermining of a person's liberties. Either it's the attitude of the executive branch, which has been going on for years, that administrations and agencies can write regulations. But where to get the right to write laws? Those are laws. They shouldn't even have this. And under administrative law, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent, as well as, you know, with the IRS code. So this has been going on, you know, for a long, long time. And what we need to do is make sure that we live and have our representatives, our present, live within the law. The president can't write law. Why does he think that he can write laws the other day? A couple weeks ago, he said, well, the Congress is acting too slowly. And I want this law on environmentalism. And he says, I'll just write an executive order. It's not going to do that. It's been grossly abused. But one thing is, a constitutional president could, when elected, look at all the laws that were passed by executive order and repeal executive order. I think it's been the runaway war on drugs in this country. This has been the way. Bust into houses, no search war. It's made worse with the, with the Bate and Patriot Act. And it boils down to, you know, what should the rule of government be? Should the rule of government be an instrument to protect us against ourselves and our own bad habits? No. That is what they assume. They, they so far, well, there are some moral fortitarians that would like to get involved in, in, in some of the moral issues. But basically, it says that the government is going to control us and tell us what we do economically and personally. Generally speaking, they don't, you know, mess around with our religious spiritual freedoms and our intellectual pursuits. But forever now, for a hundred years, is assumed that we allow the government to tell us what we can do with our own bodies, what we can smoke and drink and eat and, and this would just lead to a total disaster. It is a total sacrifice of liberty. It's who owns your body and who owns our lives and who makes our decision. And let me tell you, there's one thing. I've met a lot of politicians. I've met a lot of bureaucrats in Washington. They are not smart enough to know why it is best for you. Everything is controlled. I find it rather amazing that we have been so complacent that they took, took it upon themselves in Washington for political and economic and special interest reasons to deny us a choice on how we can buy our own electric, electric life. I mean, but why, why is it that we have, you know, given up this? But what I see is in this country is a lot of people who are sick and tired of it, and they want to change the generation that's coming into the workforce. They know and understand this and enthusiastically support the cause of liberty, the limited government sticking to the Constitution, looking into the fail. This is where they get excited, but this is where I get excited as well. Because it all blends in with the cause of liberty. Believing and, and being confident that if we want to improve our society, if we want to take care of the maximum number of people, what we want is more liberty. Not this assumption that somebody else can take care of it. It doesn't work, and I think people are realizing, I think that's what's happening now in these last five years. They're realizing this financial crisis has hit, and there's no way we can sustain this spending and deficit. And there are also the American people finally are coming around to be very tired of being bogged down in all these wars. That is why they're galvanizing and coming together, not only young people, but the older people who have been sitting aside and hoping and wishing and frustrated, and now the people are coming together and saying it's time that we reasserted ourselves, get our confidence back, understand how markets work, why we need some money, why we need a sensible foreign policy, and the convincing evidence is that if, if, if we are humanitarians, and I believe basically everybody has a humanitarian instinct, even those who do us harm are, are motivated that way. But very often, if you argue the case for free markets and some money, they think you're going back to the dark ages and you don't really care about people, we hear those arguments all the time. But the people who advocate big government, they're the ones who are going backwards. Big government and tyranny and dictators and kings and federalists, they've been around thousands of years. In our country where freedom was really tested, it was very successful, but we came concerned more with the material benefits and less about where the wealth come from and why you have to have production. And now the wealth is consumed and we have to reassert ourselves. If we want to be humanitarians and take care of the maximum amount of people, what we have to do is renew our understanding and leave and faith in a free market system, individual liberties, this could be restored. I don't think it would take that long, but we cannot do it to continue to do the same things that got us into trouble. You can't solve the problem of debt by spending more money. You can't solve the problem of inflation by putting more money. It won't work. It doesn't take a total majority to change the world. It takes an irate tyrant's minority willing to start the brush fires of liberty and my ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad consequences. But when a good idea comes along and an idea whose time has come, it cannot be stopped by governments, by tyrants, or by armies. That is where we are today. We will win this fight and restore it. My name is Kathy Greer and I live in St. Charles County. I home school my three children and I would like to know how you protect my rights. I believe that my parental rights to choose the best educational options for my children should supersede state educational mandates. She asked the question about home schooling and generally what my opinion is I think home schooling is one of the most positive things going on. That doesn't mean that everybody has to home school but it means that, well, we need this competition to be the thing you're right in being the same position with all countries. Our position with foreign countries should be friendship and trade with anybody who's willing to offer that and exchange that with us. For disputes and internal affairs it should be by self-determination it should be regional and as a border dispute it should be there and it should not be ours. I'm tired of worrying about the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and I'm worried about our own border. What is your opinion on the Iran and Syria situations and what do you think about U.S. back in Israel? I have any questions about Syria and Iran and Israel and once again the policy should be a friendship and trade with everybody and not picking and choosing winners and losers and we ought to mind our own business. The one thing that there is no evidence for it right now and no common sense to indicate that we should be involved in Syria by dropping bombs and sending weapons over there and absolutely no rationale for going to war against Iran in the future. There's a great deal of danger over there to Israel. Well Israel has 300 nuclear weapons Iran has none. I mean what's the reason to lose sleep over that that's not going to happen the Iranians don't even have an air force or navy they're not able to even if they wanted to to attack anybody and they're not going to their history doesn't show that. So Israel is worse off for our intervention yes we cropped up a country like Egypt for a long time, gave a lot of money and what happened they finally resented his dictatorship he was our guy, he was our dictator so the people will throw him out it's what the al-Qaeda is in there now and they're disrupting the small lines to Israel so this stuff backfires I think Israel should have their independence and their sovereignty we shouldn't tell them what to do on their defense of their borders on peace treaties so this is what we need to recognize that once we get in there there's too much blowback I don't believe for instance in foreign aid at all but not if you believe on principle in the constitution you're not supposed to do it, no but this is foreign aid really help Israel we get seven times as much foreign aid to their enemies that we get to Israel so Israel would benefit by cutting out all the foreign aid this is the last question this is from another London Institute good afternoon Dr. Paul there's been a lot of recent upheaval in the media about the health care provision to make birth control free and readily available to all women in this country what's your stance on the issue this is the issue of the day who is supposed to pay for birth control bills you know the world's about to blow up economically and politically and militarily the biggest discussion so often in the headlines has been dealing with birth control bills but very simply I think the people who use birth control bills should pay for birth control but what you need is a right to a new man pay for this, this and this that's not insurance any longer as a mandate it becomes an entitlement if you can force an insurance company to pay for certain things in the old days you could buy a medical policy that would protect you for certain things and not other things so it should be done voluntarily it should be done by the dictates and this is what we've been living with all these mandates that's what government is essentially all about mandates and the fight in Washington right now is who gets to write the mandates but my position is we need to quit writing the mandates and let the people make their decisions