Last night's GOP debate was more like a reality TV program than a serious look at the issues. So much posturing. But when candidates did make their points is when it got really alarming.
Last night's GOP debate was more like a reality TV program than a serious look at the issues. So much posturing. But when candidates did make their points is when it got really alarming.
Last night's GOP debate was more like a reality TV program than a serious look at the issues. So much posturing. But when candidates did make their points is when it got really alarming.
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
Well, the big news last night was that there was a grand debate.
There was a little deja vu for me thinking about how wonderful it would be not to be there again.
But anyway, I was able to listen a few minutes now and then to find out what was going on.
I imagine you were glued to the tube and learning a lot about what was happening in our country.
Well, I absolutely swore I would never watch another debate after the last one that you were in.
I didn't want to see anyone else, but I did.
I do confess I watched a little of it.
I was a little curious about what was going on.
To be honest, it was the first time I'd seen most of the people speak that were up there.
Well, you know, regardless of what our overall opinion is of the politics of what we heard, you can learn something.
I learned something about the audience and the general questions and generally the answer.
But also, I looked at this as who really benefited from this?
I would say the number one beneficiary wasn't one of the candidates.
It was Fox News Network.
I mean, he was pretty swift about what they did.
And the advertisers, the advertisers were probably pretty happy about that.
But that's the market, and who cares?
But it's amazing to me.
And I was included in this.
You know, I emotionally objected to it.
But the candidates just falling over each other just to do whatever Fox asks and says, especially the Republican debate.
They love this sort of thing.
But there certainly were a couple points.
We can't dissect that whole debate.
But I wanted to bring up one clip on Chris Christie.
Let's take a listen to that.
I will make no apologies ever for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people.
We have to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way as president.
That is exactly what I'll do.
Megan, may I respond?
Go ahead, sir.
I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans.
The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the revolution over.
John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence.
And I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights, and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.
Well, that was an interesting little tidbit about what was going on.
But it also tells us a little bit about Chris Christie and what he thinks of the Fourth Amendment.
Well, what he said is that he's going to give them any tool they need, every tool they need.
He doesn't care about it to keep us safe.
We're going to make it safe because it's been so successful since 2001.
You know, it's done so well because how many terrorists have we captured because of this surveillance of the American people?
Yeah, they listen to every one of our phone calls.
They get all of our metadata.
They can track us wherever they want to.
Yet they can't point to one success.
They've not been able to point to one terrorist.
The only time they ever catch anyone is a plot that the FBI itself has helped foment.
You know, they send in these informants, they get the people gymmed up, let's go blow something up, and then they attack them, and then the news says what a great job they did.
Well, what really bugs me, and this is a prevailing attitude among many Republicans.
One is you have to have this enemy to attack, you know, a monster to destroy, and then the play on the patriotism, I'm going to do whatever is conceivable to protect the people.
But, you know, that bothers me because I don't even believe that's the basic purpose of a government in a free society.
Because if it's to make us safe and secure and good people, there's nothing left to liberty.
And yet they forget about that.
Matter of fact, what he's talking about is the sacrifice of liberty.
He doesn't even care about the Fourth Amendment.
And he wants to just go ahead and play on this.
This is pure political chicanery that's going on to try to make points.
You know, I don't know.
I wasn't in the audience, but I thought there was not the super reception that Christie might have liked.
I think there were some people there that was annoyed about it.
And I think, of course, Rand represented the position.
That's our position.
You know, it isn't like you can't ever investigate.
But what about using a search warrant?
Oh, what's the big rush?
You're not going to catch anybody anyway.
You haven't done it.
Oh, we might have to do that.
And they're so willing to sacrifice liberty.
That to me is the biggest concern I have.
You know, it almost felt nostalgic like we had chopped off 10 years or more because it felt like it was 2002 where the American people were being terrified into giving up their liberties.
We've got to have the Patriot Act.
We've got to do this.
We've got to have wireless surveillance.
We've got to do all these things.
And so much time has passed since then, yet at least the Christie GOP is stuck in that moment.
Well, I see these events as excuses, not reasons.
Their reason is that they believe in big government.
They want surveillance.
And the Patriot Act had been around and they couldn't get it passed.
So this was an opportune time.
And the neocons actually talk about 9-11 being an opportune time to present their policies.
So this is a philosophy on their part.
They just believe that people aren't capable of taking care of themselves.
They can't take care of their finances.
They couldn't take care of their safety and on and on.
So they need somebody in government.
Somebody strong.
But sacrificing a little bit of liberty here and there is no big deal as far as they're concerned because they believe they're the elitists and they know what's best for us.
But this is what invites theocracy and people trying to mold personal behavior, economic behavior, and also is used to justify, and we heard a lot of this in the last night debate, justify our presence around the world because we're so smart and good and exceptional that we can use force.
So it's the acceptance of the use of force to force people to obey the government so that they can make us safe and secure, but it's all a ploy.
And once the government messes things up and there are dangers around and there's economic insecurity, they always want to, oh yeah, we do need help.
You know, they succumb to it.
So it multiplies on it.
And you know, if all of this surveillance worked, even if it worked, it would be bad enough.
But it has never worked and it hasn't worked.
So you get all the tyranny for none of the benefits.
But, you know, you caused an earthquake a few years ago when you suggested that it might be our actions and behaviors overseas that contribute to our being vulnerable to attack.
And maybe we should look at both sides, be safe and secure within the Constitution.
But look at what makes people angry.
And that was forbidden.
So, you know, and I had a little encouragement the other day talking to a progressive Democrat, Chris Matthews, because he acknowledged, he says you're on the right track, and that was true.
Nobody would listen to you, but more people would recognize it.
But we didn't have very many in the audience last night that was recognized.
Sorry to interrupt, but Matthews at the time said you were washed up for doing that.
Truth's come around too.
Yeah, well, it's a shame that truth wins out, but not quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
But, you know, the other thing is, is they were all conservative.
They didn't like spending money and they wanted the budget, the balance.
And I don't include these generalized complaints with my son because I think he has some positions which are different.
And he described himself, I'm a different Republican.
In many ways, I believe that is the case.
But they're all for cutting back, but nobody wants to cut any military.
And that's where the big problem is.
And they say we're conservative on personal liberties and economic liberties and taxes and all this and on budget.
But why is it conservative to spend a lot of money doing bad things around the world?
And yet nobody said, too bad they didn't listen to our program a couple days ago when we talked about a trillion-dollar boondoggle, the F-35.
You know, that would have been a great place to say, yeah, if you guys are serious, why don't we just cut that F-35 out and all this other weaponry we don't even need to think?
But we didn't hear too much of that.
You know, that's what our good friend Representative Jimmy Duncan always says.
Maintaining an empire is not conservative.
It's the opposite of conservative.
That is.
They should listen to him a little bit.
Now, I think you noted there was a little bit of inconsistency on the pro-life issue.
Yeah, that's the other thing that really struck me.
You know, they lined up one after the other, most of them being how pro-life they were, anti-abortion.
Abortion is horrible and terrible.
But then in the, which we would agree with, but in the next breath, what did they say?
What are we going to do?
Spend more money?
We need to raise these young people up to be terrorist warriors and go and fight and make the world safe for democracy.
We need to attack Iran.
We need to attack Syria.
We need to put troops on the border with Russia and provoke Russia.
All of these things that we need to do so they're pro-life before the child's born, as soon as it's out and can carry a gun.
And some spoke of their faith, and I don't want to challenge the individualism of how they use their faith, but it's funny that my interpretation of the Prince of Peace and the argument for peace was not well received in the same audience because, of course, they were anxious to be involved in all these wars, and it's going to go on and on.
But the audience, that is what discouraged me the most.
You know, I was never that encouraged.
They didn't treat me.
But later on, you know, the audience were more favorable.
Our people went to the debates and, of course, after debates.
But that audience was, you know, pretty hand-picked.
There was not true conservatism of actually cutting spending everywhere.
That wasn't to be heard.
So it was discouraging that, I don't know, there were a couple indications that Christy might not have been real well received on his thing, you don't need to be hysterical about following the Fourth Amendment.
But most of the people enjoyed the militaristic and the anti-civil libertarian issues on the floor in the debate.
Hopefully that will change in time as people read and study this and the information gets out that these guys aren't on the right track.
People Feel Frightened by Trump00:01:20
I mean, they're conservative, big government people for the most part.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report and keeping a close tab on all the candidates, I think, is a good issue.
We didn't say much about Donald Trump, but one thing about Donald Trump that fascinated me a little bit was he was bragging, which he's able to do no matter what kind of a tough question he gets.
He brags.
So when they challenge him a little bit about the establishment, he says, oh, yeah, I know how to work it.
I buy my influence, and it is good.
It pays off.
I send them money and they do my bidding.
How can he be the reformist?
He's part of the problem.
He says, oh, I do it for Democrats and Republicans.
And that doesn't make him a non-partisan.
That will clean up that next.
It makes him a bipartisan, dealing with the special interests of both parties.
So someday the people might wake up.
But so far, people like his authoritarian approach because they feel frightened and scared.
And once again, if you're frightened and scared, you have to find out what you ought to be frightened about.
And I, for one, and many others, are frightened about our own government's intrusiveness into our privacy, into our economic life, and intrusiveness into the affairs around the world.
I think when everybody understands this, we will have a different type of government.
Thank you very much for tuning in to the Liberty Report.