The Most Prophetic Man in Congress | In-Depth with Ron Paul
One of the most influential and "prophetic" congressmen of the last 50 years, Charlie welcomes Fmr. Congressman Ron Paul to the show. Rep. Paul launches in on why he feels the current Ukrainian war is "completely unnecessary" and walks through America's history of "interventionism" in the region. Paul, a true libertarian in most ways, espouses a more pacifist, non-aggression political posture toward the world, but makes his case by supporting his position with some unexpected examples such as government overreach in COVID, lockdowns, and a generational failure to pass a single congressional war authorization. Charlie plays the tape back from prior years where Rep. Paul perfectly predicted the future in Ukraine, our current inflationary cycle, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, find out why Rep. Paul calls the Federal Reserve the "chief counterfeiter" and much more. Support our sponsors. For discount counts and exclusive offers visit: https://charliekirk.com/show-sponsorsSupport the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Ron Paul and American Liberty00:03:01
Hey everybody, happy Saturday.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Congressman Ron Paul.
He has some unique ideas about how American foreign policy should be conducted, but Ron Paul has been right for a long time.
For a long time in the fight for liberty, Congressman Ron Paul has been right over the target.
I encourage you to listen to this episode with an open mind and know that this is a lifelong crusader for liberty.
He's more libertarian in nature, but he had a very big impact on my political involvement from a young age.
We explore the Federal Reserve, the diminishing dollar.
We explore American foreign policy intervention and more.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, make sure you actually are subscribed by typing in Charlie Kirk Show and hitting subscribe in the upper right-hand corner.
There is a plus sign.
If you want to support our show, it's charliekirk.com/slash support.
So many generous supporters.
Thank you guys for getting behind the work we are doing.
I want to say thanks to a couple supporters in particular that have helped us out.
Laura from Maryland, thank you.
Bradley from Indiana, thank you.
Tracy from New Jersey.
And Benjamin from Hawaii.
Thank you.
And get involved today with Turning Point USA, tpusa.com.
At Turning Point USA, we play offense with a sense of urgency to win the American Culture War.
We are educating your kids and grandkids so that we can live in a free nation.
We do everything we possibly can to pass down American values from one generation to the other.
We start high school chapters and college chapters and universities and high schools across America.
So if you want to get in the fight for the American Republic, go to tpusa.com.
That's tpusa.com.
Buckle up, everybody here.
We go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Hey, everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
I got to tell you, the man who really got me thinking differently about politics when I was in eighth grade was Congressman Ron Paul.
I was a Ron Paul revolution guy and back in middle school and high school, and I never agreed with everything he had to say.
But boy, did he open my eyes to topics and issues that no one talked about.
And it's just such an honor to have him here on this program.
He changed, I think, the American political conversation more than anybody else over the last 15 or 20 years.
Maybe Donald Trump a little bit more, but I'd say before that, Congressman, honored to have you on this program.
Charlie, nice to be with you.
So there's a lot of different topics we can talk about here.
Congressional War Authorization00:16:23
How should we think about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict happening right now?
What should America's response be?
Well, my first response is so unnecessary.
That's, to me, the feeling I get, whether I was looking at the Vietnam War or the Middle East wars with Bush.
And when I see people coming back or reports of this, and I always say to myself, it's so unnecessary.
There's no need for this.
It doesn't make any sense.
And it's not allowed.
It's immoral.
It's unconstitutional.
And we ought not to get ourselves involved in so much of this tragedy.
And so can you walk our audience through kind of some of the foreign policy decisions over the last couple of decades that led to these sort of conflicts?
I remember there was a debate once.
I think you were running for president in 2008 or 2012.
And you had the courage just to kind of chime up and say, wait a second, you guys want to go to war with Iran.
We're the reason why the Iranian government is the way it is.
Talk a little about how overly aggressive U.S. intervention over the last couple of decades has actually made many of these theaters worse.
Well, there's a couple of things.
People, if they want to move in that direction, they have to understand the word intervention.
Do we have a moral authority that we can intervene around the world and pretend that we own the empire and we can dictate because we not only are not the strongest military power, up until now, at least, we're the strongest economic power and we still have reasonably control over the reserve currency of the world.
So intervention with that is very, very powerful.
But then the second question people have to ask, if they understand intervention, what guidelines do we have?
Well, you know, people at the audiences I spoke to would ask these questions frequently, what do you do?
What do you do?
This is a mess.
I say, well, it is a mess.
It's not going to be easy, but we can't simplify.
You could start off by just reading the Constitution.
We're supposed to, you know, everybody takes an oath of office.
They go to Washington and they put up their hand, but they have a completely different understanding of the Constitution, and they get away with saying whatever they want and doing whatever they want.
And the people eventually have to wake up.
So, yes, it's not that complicated.
And the other thing that people should be encouraged by is that when people wake up, it's been said, and sometimes I sort of have to struggle with this to explain it, but governments don't exist without the consent of the people.
You say, oh, no, that doesn't happen because how come there's so much bad stuff?
Well, it isn't a monolith.
It doesn't happen that everybody gets to vote.
But eventually, for instance, just look at the abuse that we've suffered here these last couple years with the war on COVID, the attack on our civil liberties and all the spending going on and the inflation and all these regulations.
But all of a sudden, you know, maybe six months ago or so, there was a subtle change and now there's a more major change.
More people are gaining back and they're going, wow, I can take off my mask.
It's sad that you're excited about doing something that you had a right to do from the time you were born.
So it's one of the things that people understand this.
So changing people's minds.
Charlie, what you have, you have a radio show, and I understand you're pretty much in the direction of protecting liberty.
So you're trying to talk to people and changing their minds.
So everybody has a responsibility.
People say, oh, I can't do that.
Charlie's an expert.
He's a natural on that.
But no, you know, I can remember for 20 years, I would go to the college campuses before I was in Congress and after I was in Congress and nobody had heard my name.
I would go to a college campus.
Somebody invited me because there was a small libertarian group.
And I said, what the heck?
You know, I'm in this to talk to people about ideas.
And I would talk to these huge crowds.
Sometimes I'd get 15 people to one meeting.
And I thought, wow, you know, and then all of a sudden something happened.
It changed and more people were interested.
So it's weird.
Conditions are getting worse in this country.
The cause of liberty is in shambles.
And yet I become more optimistic.
More people like you, Charlie, and others that have followed through and have their own little program.
So I think there's a tremendous boost.
I give Lou Rockwell a lot of credit, you know, educationally that he's introduced Austrian economics to a lot of people.
So, there's room for that, but people have to know about that and why, because it's not hard to understand once you get those few principles together, why we're in Ukraine, but it doesn't explain why are we not getting out of Ukraine.
That's the step that we have to look forward to.
So, something that some people struggle with, Congressman, that maybe you could help me help explain is that a lot of Americans don't like to see innocent people killed.
A lot of Americans don't like to be a bystander when those sort of things occur.
So, what would your response be?
How do we properly explain that?
You know, when these kind of moral injustices occur, how should we approach that?
How do we explain not involving ourselves when those kind of atrocities are unfolding?
Well, one, the involvement of getting involved, you don't have authority to do that.
If your neighbors are having a fight inside their house and you think you can straighten that out, you don't have a right to barge in there and with force tell them, quit your fighting, quit your fighting.
Now, we don't have the authority to do it.
The other one is practical because it really doesn't work.
If you want to, I worry about that too, because I can't stand the idea of seeing these people come back from these wars and the tragedy, and also the civilians killed.
But it's bad policy because they don't follow those rules that I outline.
Because, you know, I lean in the direction of being a pacifist because I think these wars are so horrible.
But if they do this and they follow this, all of a sudden it's completely different, but they don't have the authority to do this, to go get involved.
And then if you worry about the innocent people, you say, well, that makes my case for non-intervention, because I bet I can show you the statistic to show that interventionism is the culprit.
It's a concept that people have the right to get involved in their neighbor's business and their country's business and using force.
They don't accept the idea of the non-aggression principle.
You're not allowed to initiate aggression, no matter how much you might disagree with somebody else's ideas.
And if you look at the number, take for instance, the number of people that maybe you could pick out an eight-year period, eight years under George Bush and eight years under the Democrats.
And believe me, there's a lot of innocent people die because they both endorse the same foreign policy.
You know, this week they had a vote in the House and it was to cut off all trade with Russia, not all trade, but to take away trade with Russia and Belarus.
And it was eight Republicans voted against it.
Everybody else, Republicans and Democrats, all went along with more sanctions.
We don't have the right to do that.
I mean, it's interference.
So if you care about innocent people, I mean, you should look at it, you know, from the practical viewpoint, there's a lot more innocent people die when the illegal wars are accomplished.
And all the wars since World War II were fought without a declaration.
And just think of the many citizens and died and military people, enemy and friends.
I mean, it's not tens of thousands.
It's into the millions of people that like that.
And this has been especially true since World War II because we've dismissed this whole concept.
So to me, it's strictly this concept of the respect for law and order.
I remember the very first month or two, I was in Washington and they were working their way up to declaring war in the Middle East.
And that was before they went into Iraq.
And I thought, well, these people need to vote for what is necessary.
They want a war.
So I made them vote on a declaration of war.
They got hysterical.
This was terrible.
What I was doing to them, making them vote on it.
And they said that part of the Constitution was anachronistic.
We don't worry about that silly stuff in the Constitution.
That's the problem right there.
And not only is it an anachronistic for the Declaration of War, it's anachronistic for just about everything else.
You know, probably you could probably go down the list of the Bill of Rights and find out why none of that counts.
Just look at the abuse of our civil liberties during this lockdowns, you know, under COVID.
It's been horrible.
There's no protection of property.
And, you know, if I keep talking like this, I'll probably talk myself out of being an optimist, but I'm still an optimist because I think things are getting better.
And people's, and, you know, when the people woke up about COVID, guess what?
Their pressure on the government finally came around with some benefit with natural immunity, where people now, actually, some people can take off their mask again.
So, but the people had to change that.
But it's the lackadaisical effort of the people allowing these authoritarian, aggressive individuals who want to take over and they love it.
So even though we've made progress in settling down all this business of lockdown, there's a lot of power still in the hands of the politicians that they don't even want to relinquish, even though they may have backed off a little bit.
To me, it's still the study and understanding and the excitement about what a free society could be and should be like.
So you bring up a really important point, which is congressional authorization of war, which is not done nearly as often as people think.
Can you explain what the founders' intent was for this and how rare we have actually had a congressional authorization of war and where did we go wrong?
Where did Congress delegate that power to the executive branch, where most of our listeners are probably unaware that we don't follow the original constitutional structure when it comes to war?
The purpose was to let the people have a say in it.
And so the people could reach their Congress and say, don't vote for this war.
But it never worked perfectly.
But there certainly were less wars fought when they had to declare them and they didn't last long, how horrible World War II was.
It's actually pretty amazing what happened in three years militarily.
Major things happened, but it was a lot easier to know what we were fighting for.
But nobody knew what we were fighting for or why we were fighting in the Middle East.
So that hasn't occurred.
But I think what you're talking about actually started a short time after the end of World War II.
And when I was in high school, one of my teachers was drafted, redrafted.
He'd been in World War II.
He was redrafted for Korea and didn't come back.
And this to me was just so tragic.
But the tragedy there was, well, why did the Congress vote to go to war?
But it didn't vote to go to war.
Matter of fact, it was just a little police action.
And it was, you know, Truman.
And he says, we need to do their save humanity, promote liberty, and, you know, stop communism and all this stuff.
And it's something that the people bought into.
So, yes, the Truman people were terrible, but so were the Republicans who supported it.
And so was the media supporting it to convince all the, not all the Republicans, but Republicans that go along with the Democrats with their wars.
So it's something that people go along with it, but that war was never declared.
And that has sort of established the process ever since.
About a week or two after I first won a special election in 1976, way back then, I went to Congress and there was somebody, a Democrat that was ahead of a committee, and they were having a radio debate about the issue of declaration of war.
So I argued to K.
He said, you know, you should have it.
That's meant to be restrained.
Don't go to war too easily.
And the other individual was very polite and dignified and very professional.
He says, I know, Mr. Paul, you're doing this and you're defending the Constitution, but you might as well admit it.
There's never going to be another declaration of war in this Congress.
So that was his perception.
We didn't need it, didn't have it.
And the rules have been established.
And it was so discouraging.
I said, oh, that can't be the case.
But he was exactly right.
They don't even consider it and they mock it.
If somebody like myself brings it up and say, you know, you ought to consider the Constitution, even with its imperfections, you know, it at least slows things up.
And that, of course, is eliminated, like so many other things in the Constitution.
We just totally ignore protection of property.
Just think how the privilege of freedom of speech has been undermined here in the last couple of years.
But it's still, it's up to the people to wake up and do a hand.
Just think of the people who finally said, I'm going to the PTA meeting and I'm going to talk to the school board members.
And I'll do.
And all of a sudden, there were other people who agreed.
And in some places, all of a sudden, they fired the whole school board.
So the people have to be alert to it and they have to be willing to act out.
And everybody has a personal responsibility as far as I'm concerned to participate.
I couldn't agree more.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
So many of our leaders don't even dare read it when it comes to Declaration of War.
I believe there's only been five official declarations of war.
It's War of 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, World War I, and World War II.
Congressman, I want to play a tape of you from 2014, CUT 118, of you predicting what might happen in Ukraine.
It was awfully prophetic.
Play Cut 118.
Unfortunately, the people who are more powerful in the East, the ones who are more powerful in the West, want help.
One seeks the United States to get money and support, and the other one seeks Russia.
So it's a mess.
But one thing for sure, the only thing we have a control of and an American president would have control of is to mind our own business.
Unfortunately, we have done exactly the opposite.
There was a conversation caught between the Assistant Secretary of State and our ambassador, Ukraine, planning strategy on how to take over the country and who's going to be the leader of the country in the future.
That is not good.
That's very bad.
It won't solve the problems.
It'll just dig another quagmire for us and it won't help the Ukrainians.
So you saw it clearly back in 2014.
Seems awfully prophetic that we're happening now.
The Chaos of Global Intervention00:04:20
What are your thoughts?
Well, I guess it's sort of weird.
Wow, did I say that?
That sounds pretty good.
Yeah.
All of a sudden, I go back and I reflect because probably if I walked off the floor or something, somebody asked me, I said, Nobody listened, nobody was there.
What good was it?
So it looks like if you stick to your principles and follow through, you know, the one thing we don't know is how much benefit comes from it.
And I think this is the reason I'm fascinated with the story of the remnant.
The remnant exists all the time, and there's always somebody there.
If you speak the truth and do your best and participate in a remnant of people who want to maintain the truth, there's always a remnant, according to biblical scripture, that the remnant is there, whether it's spiritual or economics.
I believe that there's going to be people out there that will retain it.
So all of a sudden, that's why, you know, like I just remarked about how much a pleasant surprise was that one individual at a PTA meeting stood up and all of a sudden the whole school board got fired.
So there's a subtleness there.
It's there.
It isn't dead and gone, but it's quiescent in many ways.
But in some ways, we see that things are waking up and they are better.
But I see this as a time of opportunity because the monetary system isn't going to last.
The foreign policy is in spite of all our power.
It's in distress because it is all mixed up.
And what is the purpose of it?
And we're going to run out of real wealth and we won't be able to afford so much of this.
And the country is going to get poor and we will have to make a decision.
And this is, and somebody says, yeah, you're going to end up with Marxism, a bunch of cultural Marxism and economic Marxism that want chaos.
And when you look at the economic policies we have today, they're having chaos and they're causing friction and they're causing poverty.
And I couldn't believe what's happening on our streets and the homelessness and the tense cities in places like San Francisco, Chicago.
I mean, it is so bad, but still, I do believe there is that remnant out there, and all of us should make an effort to grow and identify with it.
But don't the Bible tells you, don't ever try to count them because nobody knows where they are.
And yet they're available.
And we have to our personal responsibility, as far as I'm concerned, is to deal with our own selves, to understand and to study and know what is right.
Leonard Reed, who had the Foundation for Economic Education, was sort of a promoter of that idea.
You really can't just yell at people and think they're going to change their mind.
And he says that if you have an issue, whether it's an economic issue or worry issue, and you're prepared and can do it, he said, well, who's going to come?
We don't even know where they are.
You're not supposed to have a list on.
There's no way listen.
There was no internet.
And he said, the people will come.
They will find you.
And I sort of think three or four times I've had individuals come up and tell me that.
I remember in Congress, it didn't happen very often, but every once in a while, a congressman would come up.
You know, I've been watching you for two years, voting by yourself.
I had no idea what you're doing.
So why don't you tell me why you knew it was a bad thing to go to war in Iraq?
And very sincere, changed his whole tune about war.
So it happens, but it's very slow and very sluggish.
So if you're in this business, I've learned to develop patience because I sort of somebody said, how do you put up with it?
Isn't it disgusting?
And you get discouraged.
I said, no, I'm just realistic about it.
I'm a little bit pessimistic, but it turns out always better than I expect.
I have low expectations, but the outcomes have generally been much better than I ever dreamed they would be.
Gold, Taxes, and Monetary History00:09:49
Let me just kind of ask you first: just what should our approach be to the Federal Reserve?
Give our audience a little bit of history.
We have a lot of younger listeners.
You know, back in 2010, 11, and 12, when you were running for president and doing a lot of the advocacy you were doing, monetary policy became kind of like a topic, a top topic, if you will, in the conservative libertarian space.
We don't talk about it as much anymore.
So please just kind of introduce our audience to the history of our monetary system.
I know you don't have enough time to go into all of it, and then how should we approach it?
Well, I approach it in a way that I think I approach all the issues because I like to see things and try to explain in my own mind the moral principle and the moral ideas behind it, and also the practicality of is it a good idea and also the Constitution.
And I mentioned many times that you probably have heard me say that an eye-opening day for me was August 15th, 1971, about eight o'clock at night when Nixon gave his speech of introducing the wage and price controls and tariffs and closing the gold window, declaring bankruptcy.
We would no longer honor our commitment, even though they weren't doing a very good job already, that they would not honor the dollar.
And to me, the Federal Reserve is just licensed theft.
It's a counterfeiter.
Why would we go out and say, you know, what we want is a system of money, which is counterfeiting.
So there's 22 criminal groups out there.
They counterfeit money all the time.
You go and you pick the best one, the most efficient one of counterfeiting money and fooling the people and lying to the people.
And you finally pick them and say, you're the chief counterfeiter.
So we ended up with the chief counterfeiter and it was established in 1913.
And it was designed for the purpose of bailing out banks and having perpetual growth of government and deceiving the people.
It was meant to be able to pay for welfare warfare and all the militarism that we have.
And they would always be smart enough to put on restraints.
So right now we're having a little problem like that.
And they say, oh, we're solving our problem.
We just raised interest rates 0.25%, and that's going to solve the problem.
No, it's to me, it's the counterfeiting.
It's the taxes, the evil of it.
So what happens when they do spend this money?
$6 trillion since COVID and all this money for Ukraine.
We don't have the money, so we print it.
We go to the counterfeiters and they're heroes.
Oh, we'll print our money and this sort of thing.
And guess what?
That causes the dollar to go out of value.
And what happens then?
Oh, you need more dollars.
You know, if everybody understood what it meant, if all of a sudden there was a one day where if this say bread was $2 a loaf and the next day it was $4 a loaf and it was universal across the board and people say, wow, this is terrible.
What's the government going to do about it?
Give me more money.
I want to pay for this.
But it is theft, it's fraud, and it does a lot of harm, even though on the short run, a lot of people make a lot of money.
If they had, if I had my way, it wouldn't be acceptable because I would cut off the spigot.
And politically, actually, it's not going to work.
It won't work that way.
So there has to be a revision of this.
But just all the big government, it's a form of taxation because who has to pay those higher prices?
Who will be most affected by the bread going from two to four?
It'll be low middle class and the poor because they'll pay it.
So they're paying all the taxes.
They'll say, oh, no, lower 50%.
They don't pay any income taxes.
Yeah, but they pay, they suffer more from the inflation tax.
So it's sinister, it's deceptive, it's a tax, and it's immoral.
Other than that, it's a grand idea, you know, for the professional counterfeiters.
So I want to shift gears.
You mentioned this, and this is something where you, if there was any topic where you opened my eyes the most, it would be our monetary system and where I'm probably in the most agreement with you, where I think most Americans need to just do a crash course on your book and the Fed and this entire fiat currency system that we've basically built our entire civilization around.
I want to play a clip here of you from a couple years ago on the Federal Reserve, and then we could talk about it.
Play Cut 114.
In a nutshell, Congressman, how has the Fed destroyed the value of money?
What has it done to us in the nearly 100 years it's been in existence?
Well, its policy is deliberate devaluation of the currency just by increasing units.
If you increase the units of substance, the value per unit goes down.
So they've been doing this systematically since 1913, and now we're working on a dollar that's worth two cents compared to 1913.
And they do it with an understanding or at least a belief in their hearts that they can do central economic planning through manipulation of money supply and interest rates.
And they can't.
So we could play that even further, but you're saying exactly the same thing, it sounds like.
What should our monetary system be?
Because some people say, oh, gold is outdated.
What should we base a currency on?
The people should decide.
You know, the people, when the economy and society breaks down, the people always decide.
They come up with the money.
Some people might have some coins around.
Some people, after wars, they've used everything just so it had substance to it.
It was an asset like cigarettes or whatever.
So ultimately, the people have to endorse it.
That's how all money originates by the people picking it out.
And it fascinates me to read about how gold was picked out because it was used for a long time before it was actually even called money, but it was natural and the people used it.
And it was something that they ended up trusting.
So the people have to make that choice.
But, you know, you can have laws, but the laws didn't do so well.
We had it in the Constitution.
We broke the Constitution.
Did we amend the Constitution?
You know, if we all of a sudden tomorrow had all constitutionalists in Washington, we would change the monetary system because it's way over and above.
And then we would make sure they never go to war without a declaration.
Make sure that they don't keep printing money for the welfare state, not only just for people here, but for around the world.
They've already started listing.
How many people are coming in?
Not the southern border problem we have.
How many people are coming from Afghanistan?
And now they're lining up from Ukraine.
They're coming here.
That's all welfareism.
It causes so much distortion that it goes endlessly.
It's very, very tempting, but it always fails.
Paper money always fails and fiat money doesn't work.
But you don't know when and how fast it will be.
But most of the time, it most likely injures the middle class and the poor.
And the bankers, you know, they walk off with the gold.
Yeah, so let's play this out in the next, I mean, it's hard to predict, but you actually are really good at predicting.
So, where does this go in the next couple of years?
I mean, where do people put their assets, I suppose, is the question I'm asking.
Well, you know, I think the fact that gold and silver originated as the money.
Matter of fact, the Constitution and the Monetary Act of 1792 recognized silver was our money.
So having that, I think, is important.
I was a coin collector as a kid.
We had a retail dairy business, and I looked at every single coin.
But back then, believe it or not, there was copper in the pennies.
There was nickels in the nickels, and there was silver in the dimes.
And it was a lot more fun.
I lost all interest in looking at every coin once they got rid of that.
And I thought, I think it was in the early 1980s.
They said, we can't even afford copper into pennies.
We couldn't even afford a copper standard.
But people should have alternatives.
And everybody's life is a little bit different.
Some people, a lot of libertarians, are very up to this idea of parking wealth overseas and having places to go.
And I have nothing against it.
I just worry about the controls the government's going to have on us going back and forth overseas and us traveling.
Already there's so many restrictions on travel now that it's a real problem.
But overseas, it's still people like that idea.
Some people like to have the property where they can live off the property they have and have some survival equipment.
But you know, when I go through all this and I do a lot of that myself, I end up, my total conclusion was: well, if you want to protect yourself, the most important investment you have to make is the investment in protecting and promoting liberty.
Releasing Creative Economic Energy00:04:22
Because I am convinced that if the outcome of the episode that we're just entering right now, if in a year from now it's in total chaos, if you took off all the regulations and returned the monetary system to the people and got rid of the taxing system,
I think if you released all that creative energy where people didn't have to deal with the excessive regulations and the taxing system, that in a year or so, I think the country would be back on the feet again.
And when I tell people that and they say, well, I'd like to have a year of freedom.
I think I could really build up some wealth.
So this sort of thing.
So no, invest in liberty.
And that's why I get so excited about talking about it because it fits my personal beliefs about the moral principles of liberty and where liberty really comes from.
And also the practicality of it.
If you care about people, you care about poor people.
You have to care about a market economy.
And if you care about it, and most people do, but they don't understand what to do about it.
If you care about living in a peaceful society and not sending kids off with a draft, which is always potentially available, still on the books.
You can't even get that off the books, off to these wars.
I mean, how can anybody turn this down?
I can always say to myself and other people, how can we have this philosophy that is so adaptive to a wonderful society?
How come we're not doing better?
It's available even under stressed conditions.
It's available that the people demand it that they have a free society.
And This is something that I think we who are interested and have knowledge about it have this obligation.
I have this silly notion that if you come around that you're comfortable with your beliefs and not somebody that's just blowing a lot of wind, that you say, you know, these ideas are right and I feel strongly about it.
I think you have a moral obligation to spread that message.
I mean, don't we take some basic principles and have a moral responsibility to our children?
I mean, most people accept this.
Why can't couldn't that expand to education?
But here, who's the competition?
Government schools.
Now, there's a problem.
Big time.
So, Congressman, in closing, how can people follow you and support you?
And tell us about the show you're doing.
Well, I do a live stream show on a computer and Ron Paul Liberty Report.
And Daniel Mink Adams is on there with me and Chris Rossini.
And we talk a lot about what we talked about on this program, you know, just today and try to keep up.
We do a lot of on talking about the Federal Reserve and inflation.
And there's a lot of activity there.
About a year ago, we talked really and trying to get people galvanized and find and trying to figure out what was really going on with COVID.
But I have other organizations too, and I still do a lot of speaking and I just do the things.
And I have the most fun talking to young people because I think you said that you actually knew something about me when you were in grade school.
Yes.
That's pretty good.
You know, one thing that I liked the best was when teenagers brought their parents to my congressional office after we had a campaign to introduce them to me.
And I thought the parents would be embarrassed, but they loved it because they loved the idea that their kids cared about it and they were understanding ideas about government.
Terrific.
Well, Congressman, thank you so much for your time.
And we'll see you soon.
Thanks for the fight for liberty.
Thank you very much.
Nice to be in with you.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts as always: freedom at charliekirk.com.
And make sure you subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Take out your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.