The departure of Rand from the presidential race has left the hawks gloating. Non-interventionism is dead, the Ron Paul Movement is over, we're all neocons now, they crow. Let's just see about that!
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
The departure of Rand from the presidential race has left the hawks gloating. Non-interventionism is dead, the Ron Paul Movement is over, we're all neocons now, they crow. Let's just see about that!
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
The departure of Rand from the presidential race has left the hawks gloating. Non-interventionism is dead, the Ron Paul Movement is over, we're all neocons now, they crow. Let's just see about that!
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today, the co-host, Daniel McAdams.
Daniel, nice to see you.
Good to see you back in Sunny Lake Jackson, sir.
That's right.
I made a trip to Iowa.
I don't know if you noticed or not, but you had manned a ship here while I was gone and did a great job.
And then I stopped over at the University of Texas in Arlington and met with a lot of young people.
1,500 came out and they were very strong on non-intervention and they aren't anxious to start another war, let me tell you.
So that idea is alive and well.
But if you just read the reports now that Rand had to drop out of the race with his disappointing showing, he just didn't think that he should pursue it any longer, which was disappointing to him, to the family, his supporters.
But I guess he had to be realistic and make his own decision.
But you know, on the follow-up, we have both looked at some of the articles.
Not that we're the ultimate political pundits, but this is a little bit personal because it has to do with the libertarian philosophy, the libertarian movement, and our foreign policy.
So the comments really reveal a whole lot, and there are several.
I think you had a couple articles.
I found a couple articles.
And it's pretty amazing who's, you know, they're like the politician.
They win something and they declare total victory.
Now, you know, the thrust of these articles coming from the neocons, the pro-war people, is that, you know, the neocons won.
We beat the pea snakes.
And score one.
Here's one article by Burgess Everett, Politico.
Paul's demise.
Score one for the Hawks.
Well, I guess, you know, one little battle here.
I would have to say they're correct, and we have to try to explain that and challenge it.
But then there was another one by an individual called a conservative, Jennifer Rubin.
So they picked her out of the thin air, and when they were picking her out, they said, we didn't know you were a conservative Republican.
Oh, yeah, I'm a conservative Republican.
So they bring her over and she blogs and writes for the Washington Post.
So she couldn't wait.
I mean, she is probably one of the worst warmongers in the world.
In one year, period, she advocated six military attacks by the United States between 2014 and 2015.
So that's how hawkish she is.
And her article said, the out-of-step Rand Paul is out of the race.
And she makes the case for it because obviously if he'd have been perfectly in lockstep, he wouldn't have come in fifth.
He would have done better.
But she wants to say because he did not do better with the evangelical war people who justify for theological reasons that we have to be in the Middle East, therefore it's a great victory.
Challenging Leadership Concepts00:15:18
I have a few arguments against that, but you, of course, have looked at this too.
What kind of comments do you have?
What kind of impression did you get when you started reading some of these articles?
Well, you're right.
I mean, they do want to make this all about one issue.
And I think they're terrified of the fact that Rand, although he was not as consistent, I have to say, as you were in the anti-war message, and that disappointed a lot of people on the libertarian side.
But just the fact that he mentioned that we should put a yellow caution light up before we bomb, I think it just terrified the people who really want to believe that they can declare victory for interventionism.
So they had to get even a voice, any voice for peace out of the race.
And I think that's why they're gloating.
And it's basically, okay, case closed, it's over, no more discussion about this foreign policy stuff.
Now, Everett's article said that they went on to say the big problem was he tried to nudge the party, like you say, toward a restrained foreign policy, which is exactly what we need.
Then along came the Islamic State, Paris, and San Bernardino.
Well, you know, the Islamic State, that's a serious problem, but if they study it, they might realize that our policies haven't helped to hinder Islamic State, and they're using our weapons, and that's a total disaster.
Paris, that was very, very bad.
But Europe is not America.
And because 124, 28 people were killed in Paris, does that justify, you know, us kowtowing and changing our whole foreign policy and saying, you know, that we have to be more militant.
In San Bernardino, 14 people were killed.
That's a serious problem.
But, you know, if you put it in the context of understanding foreign policy and why they retaliate, why they get annoyed with our occupations and so many people in the Middle East being killed, you know, it's a different story.
But what about the other type of terrorism in this country that I worry about?
And that is the inner cities.
I mean, you and I and most of our listeners probably, most Americans, wouldn't feel free just to take hand in hand and walk down the streets of most parts of our inner cities.
And 50 per night.
Now, that is a serious problem.
But, you know, there's no real concern expressed by that.
But no, the 14, so they have to justify this.
This is their justification that they can propagandize to move the warfare state, the military-industrial complex, and argue the case.
Listen to the candidates.
Now, they're all bomb, bomb, bomb.
Let's go over there and some are even arguing for troops.
Yet I think they are way out of step with the American people.
Well, they want to use the San Martino attack to push their agenda.
That now we know that ISIS is a threat on U.S. soil.
But how do we know that these people weren't radicalized by U.S. policy in the Middle East?
In other words, how do we know that they weren't inspired to take this attack, not to justify it, but if we had not been bombing and occupied?
They don't know that and they don't want to talk about that.
And I came across a quote by a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chaz Freeman.
He was Reagan's ambassador, and he's also well known as an expert.
He's an Arabic speaker, which is pretty rare for someone of his stature.
So he knows all about it.
And this is his reaction last month when President Obama announced that he was going to send some U.S. troops back into Iraq and into Syria.
This is really interesting.
He said on the decision, he says it's a gift to ISIS, you know, sending the troops back.
It's what they want.
And then he went on to say, quote, as Ron Paul observed, they're over here because we're over there.
The more we're over there, the more we're going to see of them over here.
So here's an expert saying that essentially what you're saying is absolutely correct.
But so far, we don't have the total attention of the people.
We certainly don't have the attention of the evangelical community in Iowa.
But I'm still arguing that's a narrow group.
They don't speak for this country.
They don't even speak for the entire Republican Party.
Now, the Republican Party and the country have an established policy right now that even Obama is following.
Yes, they're bombing and killing and doing all these things.
No troops on the ground, no troops.
No American wants to do it.
And then they are going back into Iraq, you know, after all these years, and they go back to, you know, a discredited president.
You know, I keep thinking about the time, you know, when Bush was running in 2000.
I go, oh boy, keep my fingers crossed.
He talked about a humble foreign policy.
We should not be arrogant.
He says, if we're an arrogant nation, they will resent us.
If we're a humble nation, they will welcome us.
And look what happens.
Eight years of war, total discredit.
Republicans lost the House and the Senate and the presidency in 08.
And here they're out screaming for that policy again.
And then the neocons, who are the true warmongers, they're the extremists.
They're the radicals.
They just want to go, go, go.
But of course, they're not going to get shot at.
Some of our kids will get shot at.
So the American people, I do not believe for a minute that what happened there in that primary and why the Hawks have gotten so much encouragement means that the country is going in that direction.
But it does mean that we have to overcome the propaganda.
Yeah, and I think if you look at it, I think even their gloating rand aside is not completely accurate.
And here's what Politico said.
The message is clear.
Voters are looking for a brawny national security posture, not a nuanced one.
But think about the actual people that are in the race.
Now, Ted Cruz has been propelled by, with the help of some of the neocons, to the front of the race.
But the only time that he is successful is when he cross-dresses as a libertarian.
And look at Trump.
For all of his faults, and there are plenty.
If you look at what he says about foreign policy, he says, hey, let the Russians take care of Syria.
We don't want to go in there.
Hey, I'll talk to Putin.
Iraq was a mistake.
So the idea that these are the two frontrunners in the race who are one steals from libertarians and one makes some noise that he doesn't want to blow up the world.
So I think their gloating is premature.
Yeah, I think that it's a disappointment when I hear there are some people who say, well, Ron's not in the race.
I'd support if he's in the race.
But I guess I'm going to have to go with Cruz or Rubio or even Sanders.
That makes you a little disappointed that I haven't done my job well enough.
But you know, how do they get people to do this?
The people don't want war.
And I've said that many times.
And yet they end up going for war.
Whether it was talking the conservatives, the anti-war people, the old right, out of, you know, their position was not to go into World War II, and yet we were maneuvered into World War II.
The propagandas got us maneuvered into World War I.
They accepted the Korean War, and they were maneuvered again illegally and unconstitutionally into Vietnam.
Total disasters.
And now it's total policy.
And yet, why do the people go along?
I want to read a quote, which is a famous quote.
A lot of the listeners may have heard it before, but it is so important because I think it's so truthful.
And where it comes from is really a surprise, you know, on why some individuals blurt out the truth.
So we're going to get that on the screen here, and I'm going to read it to you in one second.
But it is important to understand that the propagandas are very important.
So let me get this here, and there we go.
And here it goes.
Let me read this.
Because I think it challenges us, tells us a truth, and it's a truth that I want to change.
And this is the way it goes.
Why, of course, the people don't want war.
Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England.
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.
Whether it's in a democracy or fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in every country.
Well, you know, this is a quote from Herman Goring as he faced the gallows after the Nuremberg trials.
He committed suicide before that.
But there's a lot of truth in that, and it still seems to work.
But I think what we're trying to do is challenge this concept that the leaders are in charge.
But I've often said the leaders reflect the people's opinion.
So the leaders just don't go ahead and do things.
They have to change the people's opinion.
So people have to become alert that if it's propaganda coming from politicians, and Americans now are getting more leery of anything the politicians are saying in government, I think that's good.
But there's more than politicians.
These articles that we read, establishment media, they're always changing and conditioning the people.
And it was one article here, I think it was Jennifer Ruben's article, is that Rand messed up because, you know, his policies looked like he didn't care about national security.
So they're arguing what we do is good for national security.
We're threatened by terrorism.
We're going broke.
We're involved in all these countries.
And the argument is to send more troops and bomb more people.
And I think that is the challenge that we have.
How in the world can we reach enough people to stand up to the government?
And we frequently mention the fact that we stood up to the president about going to do the bombing in Syria.
And he stopped and didn't even take the vote.
But what did we do?
We ended up bombing in Syria.
Well, here's another example.
I brought this along of the wonderful victories of the neocons.
Here's a headline from today.
Top ISIS commanders taking refuge in Libya.
I thought we fixed that.
I thought the neocons fixed Libya.
But you know, I wanted to say about the Goering quote, you know, I think there's a very important lesson there that we should learn.
And that lesson is we are not going to vote in non-interventionism.
It's not about we just back the right candidate and we will have a peace and prosperity.
This is a ground-up operation.
You've known this because you've done it for decades.
So people want to get so excited.
I've got to have a candidate.
I've got to have a candidate.
But the fact of the matter is, it's education is changing the minds of the people.
It's not about who you can vote in.
Is this guy slightly better, this guy slightly worse?
This is a long, long, hard road that we're hoeing.
And, you know, I would hope that people would support education efforts so we can change the minds of America rather than putting in billions of dollars for this candidate or that.
Well, you know, they were talking in the articles, you know, that Rand lost, the non-interventions lost, and it was a victory for the Hawks and the neoconservatives.
You know, if we allow this to stand and allow people to believe, now you already are you there using this for propaganda.
You can't take that position now.
If you're looking for who really lost, if this was allowed to stand, it's those of us who believe in peace.
Peace loses.
War wins on this.
And yet I still say that what we have to challenge is that people can be brought along so easily.
And we have to say, don't go along with it.
You know, and even some of my writings, you know, this, I keep saying eventually people are going to have to resist.
I mean, would you want your, are you going to encourage your kid to become a private in the Army?
You know, it used to be we worried about the draft, but it looks like we have to worry about the draft again.
And of course, when the draft comes back, they're probably going to be drafting women too.
So the fact that there's even a discussion on that means that this stuff isn't going to end.
But the concept of preemptive war is established.
Bush the bum, you know, who really, you know, walked out in disgrace, his doctrine is still there.
We don't have to have the Congress Act.
We don't have to ask the American people.
And the American people will only be relevant if they make their voices heard in a different way.
So, well, what do you mean we should steal, you say we can't change the Congress.
Well, there's a lot of other ways to do it.
And that is that we have to do the writing and the competition intellectually, which we're doing better of all the time.
But we have to be able to compete and change people's attitude.
But eventually, it's going to have to be, because the economic crisis is coming and they're going to force war on it.
It's going to have to be probably by peaceful resistance to this, which is risky, and that's always difficult.
Now, when do you have to stand up and peacefully resist and have the threat of the law coming down on us?
But I think they're preparing for all this because if you have, you know, in the third world nations, different countries, a lot of times when the dictators get so bad, there's a people rising up and they eventually throw out the dictator.
And right now we're having trouble throwing out our dictatorships and they have, you know, with the media, you know, what TV station is really on our side on this.
The neocons have co-opted this.
And unfortunately, what they have done is they're trying to use this vote just that occurred in Iowa.
This is a great victory for the Hawks.
And I think that anybody who cares has to realize that it was a great victory, maybe it was a temporary victory, and that if we don't change, if we allow this to stand, what is really going to hurt is that peace will be lost.
And then this whole concept is going to be challenged.
Behind the Hawks' Victory00:03:24
What I would humbly recommend is instead of sitting behind the talking heads on the mainstream media, people's time would be better spent reading your latest book, Swords into Plowshares, for a better understanding of where we've been this past century.
Well, we could take a lesson because this argument has been going on for a lot of years.
And unfortunately, the tyrants in government always get elected.
So since we can't, you know, get the situation where only the good guys own the government.
Matter of fact, because of the way we send our people there, the special interests, you know, the money from the banks and the money from the military industrial complex, that's who sends the members to Congress.
So there has to be people speaking out and understanding that there is a different system.
Now we could look toward the tradition that Jefferson talked about, and that is peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, and not be where they can't accuse us, like Goring points out, of being unpatriotic if you're not for this war.
And I think I got a little bit of encouragement during the presidential race because they were painting me as, you know, un-American.
I don't care.
And the troops, you're endangering the troops.
You won't vote for their money.
But the troops supported me by far, much more than the others.
I was a troop once.
I was in the military.
And the last thing I wanted was to expand the Vietnam War because that was a threat to me and my family that I'd have to go and fight some ridiculous war.
So the people's minds have to be changed.
And hopefully, if we don't have the people in the government change, we have to either ignore them or reduce the size.
I think the goal has to be, is to reduce the power of government and hold their feet to the fire like the founders wanted us to do and not have preemptive war policy.
That has to be repealed if we ever expect to move toward a peaceful policy.
So in spite of our setbacks and our challenges, I think we should take this and prove to them that it's not a victory for the Hawks.
And those people who want to bomb bomb bomb don't win.
Just think of when McCain was running, Bom, Bomb, Bomb Iran.
You know, he didn't win on this.
Usually the people who sort of lie and fib and say, I'm going to be the presidential candidates for peace, then they turn out.
Obama didn't run on war.
He was going to stop these wars.
And yet they changed their tune because behind the scenes there is control over the president.
And my prediction now is that the two candidates emerge, they're going to be neocons.
They're going to be pro-war.
They're going to be pro-military industrial complex.
They're going to be pro-welfare.
And they're going to be very much involved in using the executive order illegally.
So it's a tough job, but this turned this into directing our attention to the real issue and getting more Americans to understand why it's critical that we accept a very, very positive policy of non-interventionism.