And the Justice Department use of civil asset forfeiture. [applause] sen. Paul thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have three boys, one of them with me. [applause] obamacare, you can keep it. [laughter] apparently, that is the republican message appeared raise your hand if you want to keep obamacare . Exactly. [laughter] nobody outside of washington who is a republican wants to keep it. What happened to these people . I heard them, we will repeal it. That sounds like all of it and then some. When we got up here, we decided to vote on a partial repeal and we lost eight people who voted for it one year ago. We started getting skinnier and voted on the we skinny repeal, what percentage of obamacare would be revealed repeal . 20 . And we lost people on that, they said it was too much, then they said it was too little the next repeal. It amazes me how people with a straight face and one republican alternative plan said that literally, if you like obamacare, you can keep it. Still one of those floating around. I do not understand the disconnect. My father called it potomac fever. People come up and it goes to their brain. , lincoln said, if you want to challenge a man, give them power. I think that is the problem. So many people succumb to it. They forget where they came from. They forget what they said on the campaign trail. Some people say in order to get ahead what we need to do is just hold hands and and sing kumbuya, but maybe not because they were shooting at me at the baseball game. People say, you know how your parents, maybe grandparents say, remember the 1950s, everyone was perfect. Idyllic, peaceful world. They say in politics, everybody used to get along. It is incivility that is our problem. Have these people not read any of our history . Thomas jefferson and john adams read each others throat, accusing each other of having children out of wedlock. Andrew jackson they just finished a book about him being a bigamist and being married to a woman before she was divorced. We have had a lot of acrimony. From my state, a guy named henry clay one of the most famous senators who was elected to the house in like 1810. He gets elected and becomes speaker in his first term. In the meantime, these people have been up to 20, 30, 40 years. Until they get to be speaker. It was kind of a raucous place. Dogs on the floor. The derringer had just been and it did a pistol invented, a pistol that slid down your arm in case people got out of hand, the representatives on the floor. There is this guy named John Randolph of roanoke and he had two big dogs. A big game town. He had these two dogs on the floor and the speaker before him said, that those dogs off there and the guy from North Carolina came up to John Randolph and said, you need to get those dogs out of here. And John Randolph of roanoke picked up his cane and came to him over the head until he decided, it is best not to mess with John Randolph. So henry clay gets elected and some of those in the sergeant at arms, get those dogs up the floor. The sergeant at arms was armed, went over and made them take the dogs out, and so John Randolph of roanoke was not happy with henry clay. Henry clay comes out the door, comes on the doors and John Randolph of roanoke goes up and he says, i never sidesteps gone unk. Idestep a sk henry clay said, i always do and walked on past. Things were not really ever completely without acrimony. The moral of the story if there is a moral, the moral of the story is not that we should carry guns would be so unhappy we are shooting at each other on the house floor. There have been times in our history when we do. If people ask you, who is a hero and i were to define it, to me a hero is not someone who is a man or woman of their times but a man or woman beyond their times. In our history, William Lloyd harrison is a hero. He opposed slavery when it was unpopular. They said everybody has slaves. It was accepted, not a big deal. You could argue that but you could also argue that who are the Extraordinary People that said it was a big deal. Who understood at that time, he called theletter liberator 430odd years. And you could say, no lincoln takes the credit. A great book called forced into glory, not saying anything about Abraham Lincoln but he got there because of people like garrison who fought in the trenches and fought for ideas. Lincoln was a a leticia and. Was a politician. He wrote a letter at one time that said, if we can keep the union together and mesquite slavery i would settle for that. He did a great thing in the end but he got there because him and somebody said slavery is wrong. We need people in every time trying to think beyond the moment of what we can do. There are some issues maybe not a slavery, but issues of great importance. The idea of whether babies mean anything or children mean anything. Do we just say, no big deal . The question i asked Debbie Wasserman schultz about a year ago was when does life begin . And you know, many of them say when you take the baby home. Really . It so if your baby is in the hospital for a couple of months it is not really live . Alive. In my practice, would examine babies that were sometimes only one pound or 1. 5 pounds. If they get oxygen too soon they can develop abnormal blood vessels and become blind. You almost never see it now because there are cures. You hear people say im not for red light cameras. I hate them, by the way. [laughter] but you have to be for something even more important that precedes that. Individual liberty and rights. We have to understand where our liberty comes from. That our liberty precedes government, that our liberty comes from our creator. If we dont understand that, we get confused and then when uncle bernie comes along and says well, health care is a right. Well, if its a right does that mean you have a right to the involuntary servitude of those who are going to give you the health care . If you have a right to concrete items, where does it end . Here we are sitting debating macare and my side god help us [laughter] my side decides that the only way we can replace it is to have a nearly 300 billion insurance stabilization program. They say insurance is too expensive, so well tax everybody, put it into a fund. Give it to the Insurance Companies who can charge less. So i raised my hand, which is always a danger at lunch. I said, i havent had a new car in a while. Theyre very expensive. If we could have a new car Stabilization Fund that would help me. [laughter] and i have two kids in college. Could we have a college Stabilization Fund . My kids drop their phone in rivers, lakes, you name it. And iphones are expensive. Could we not have an iphone Stabilization Fund . When did it become a republican idea to take from the general populace, a tax, stick it into a fund, give it to a private company and tell them to lower their prices . It is not republican or conservative. Thats still what theyre talking about. When they say we dont have a replacement, they want a government replacement. This debate at the very beginning. I was on one of the Television Programs and i said yes, we should replace it at the same time because we need to offer something positive to the people and i would replace it with freedom. Freedom of choice, competition. Legalize the sale of inexpensive insurance. Then everybody said, yeah, we need it replaced but turns out we disagreed on what replace was. To many replace was keeping much of obamacare in place. Keeping the tax subsidies in place, adding an Insurance Fund but then keeping the regulations in place. What it gets to is this you are the next generation. You have to think through things. For example, what are the unintended consequences. The problem in washington is we have big hearts but small brains. [laughter] sort of a dinosaur kind of syndrome up here in more ways than one. But the thing is, people say we must help people so well to let people buy insurance who are already sick. Because, if we dont, were foot we are not good people and then compassion is equated with money. People start throwing all kinds of money at every problem which isnt republican and isnt truly compassionate if you destroy the country in the process. The idea of throw more money at this and it got bigger and bigger and bigger, but the fundamental flaw of obamacare is this if you tell people they can buy insurance after theyre sick and then you put a bunch of mandates on insurance to make it more expensive so poor people and working class people cant afford and it say you can buy it when youre sick. Guess what happens they wait to buy it until theyre sick. So you get sicker and sicker people and the young, Healthy People dont buy it. It is the death spiral that is obamacare. So what did the republicans offer to replace it with . They said well subsidize it. They werent going to fix it, so what is the real problem here . Do you think i dont care about sick people . My family are sick, very sick. I care a lot about new health care. Life helping people who do not have health care. So i do care a lot about sick people but i want to get something that helps. If your house is on fire, do you call your Insurance Agent and say i forgot to get homeowners insurance. No, you call a fireman so if you are sick, we do have Government Health care. Its call medicaid. We could help people directly. But if youre very, very sick and its costing 1 million a year to keep you alive and the Insurance Company knows exactly how many it costs, you cant insure against that. Then you say, were going to take all the sick people and put them together and call it a highrisk pool. The Insurance Companies know exactly what its going to cost. When the insurance executives came in, i said, if you no longer force people to buy insurance, the mandate. They tax you if you did not buy insurance. If you did not do that but tell people they can buy insurance after theyre sick, it might be worse than obamacare. We keep what was in obama cares care but we get rid of the force. We dont want to force you to buy insurance but if you keep the regulations in place that still say you can buy it after youre sick. People do. It will not work. Really the problem is, and this is true of anything. You could say, for example, that water is so important, how could we leave that up to individuals to figure out how to get water . Food is so important. Cars are so important. How could we possibly let free individuals make arrangements to buy and sell thing with their neighbors . We have to get the government involved. Id wipe out all the obama care regulations tomorrow, including preexisting conditions. Does that mean i dont care . No, the marketplace will work. What happens for those who fall through the cracks . You dont have a right to health care. We have an obligation to help here. Help you. Do you have a right to health care . No, but do you have an obligation to help people who dont have health care . Absolutely. Theres a difference between an obligation and a right. Are you your brothers keeper . In a religious sense, absolutely. Is the government should Big Government be your brothers keeper . No. Why dont you want the federal government to do it . One, i think you lose your liberty in the process, but two, theyre not very good at anything. People will ask me, do you think government is inherently stupid . I say well, i dont know but its a debatable question. They cant even deliver the mail. The post office [laughter] they havent figured out that we have email is the first problem. But the post office loses a billion dollars a quarter. 4 billion a year, so they came to my committee a couple of years ago and they said well, to retain good people, to have a good post office, were going to have to pay the executives more. I raised my hand, which is always a problem. And i said, well, how many executives how much talent does it take to lose a billion dollars a quarter . You think you have to pay people to lose that . If the standard is losing 1 billion a quarter when you look at it, there are two main categorical reasons why you want to be for limited government. Small government, really at every level but particularly at the federal level. I call it the liberty argument and the efficiency argument. The liberty argument, when you work and you get your check and lets say you have 100. Whose money is it . Its your labor. You traded for something that paid you 100. You are arguing for anarchy, no taxes. There will be taxes. Law enforcement, National Defense and several theres probably one or two other things. I cant remember the other ones. Wed have a small government that does things and youd have some taxes, but if i told you you made 100 and the taxes were going to with 90 out of every 100 would you think i stole took something that was yours, stole something that was yours, that i took some of your liberty . So the argument is for the lowest taxable level you can have in the government we have to have to do things that cant be done in the private marketplace. Mostly National Defense. Very few other things. National defense needs to be done by the government. Even entitlement programs and all, that id do it at the state level. I would not do it at the federal level. They are not very good and they end up destroying people. Whats the number one way you get selfesteem . Can anyone give it to you . Youre the selfesteem generation. Everybody at school as been trying to give it to you. Everybody gets a trophy. Right . Everybodys a winner, right . No, you get selfesteem by doing something. It doesnt mean that everything is a concert pianist, not everyone is an opera singer, a professional baseball player, a doctor or a lawyer but you get your selfesteem by doing things so i think Big Government comes in and takes that away from you. You have to earn selfesteem. Nobody gives it to you. You get it through work. I say yes, we should have work requirements for welfare, absolutely. Every ablebodied person who gets anything from the government should have to work for it. They say it sounds harsh. I say work is not a punishment. Work is the reward. Work is how you feel better about yourself, no matter what it is. Thats how you get your selfesteem by doing something, producing something. We have to figure out what we think government should do. The first argument against Big Government is liberty argument. That if you give up 90 of your check, youre losing your liberties. My dad used to say well, the church didnt ask for more than 10 , he didnt think the government should either. [laughter] not a bad standard. The other argument is the efficiency argument. This goes along with the post office. A great statement by Milton Friedman said nobody spends someone elses money as wisely as their own. Thats why government is not efficient. That and because theres no profit motive. The profit motive, this is the invisible hand of selfinterest. People say how terrible it is. What if government didnt direct all of our Economic Affairs and people were selfish and wanted more money for their family. Selfinterests, trying to maximize profit leads to efficiency. Capitalism is that supply and demand curve crossing. Whats the result of it crossing and finding the intersection . The most amount of goods to the most amount of people at the cheapest cost. You want central planning, go visit venezuela, go visit cuba. [applause] sen. Paul conservatives are very good with the Second Amendment. That may be their best amendment, probably. Im all for the second in amendment. I am very supportive personally, in public and every which way you can think, but the thing is you have to think of all the bill of rights. You want to defend the Second Amendment, you have to really believe in the first amendment. Without speech, discourse, the ability to organize and associate with fellow believers in the Second Amendment or any other amendment, youre not going to keep it but you also have to have the fourth amendment. re not going to keep it but you also have to have the fourth amendment. I spend a lot of my time trying to protect the fourth amendment. That says the government cant come in your house without a warrant. The warrant has to have your name on and it they have to specify what they want. Why is this important . Because you live in the digital era. You dont even remember the era before the digital error. Its not that the government is going to come into your allows and ask for papers. We dont have papers anymore. The post office, we dont have mail anymore. But your whole life is on your phone and the government has no right to look at it unless they individualize. They have to put your name on a warrant and go to a third party, an independents judge. Why is this important . Because you can see how people get carried away sometimes. The japanese attacked us in world war ii and we were angry. Those people who are asian or looked asian, we have to round them up, put them in camps. We forgot about justice, individualization of whether someone is guilty. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty. We have to be careful. When Edward Snowden reveal that would all of our information was being collected, that was a big deal. I would argue that we might not be safer in the sense that if you delect too much information, you might overwhelmed with the information and not be targeting what you need to do. Remember the boston bombers . Into russia, they made public postings. It was like absolutely go after that. Go after social media, go to the judge. If im the judge, call me. Id have given a warrant to look at any of their stuff. The guy that fwommed nightclub bombed the nightclub in florida. You know the f. B. I. Had information on him . Hed been investigated for a year and a half. Six weeks before that he goes to buy a thousand rounds of ammunition in a gun store. They had him