All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2017 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
16:20
Migrant Crisis, Secession, And More...Ask Ron Paul!

Today the Liberty Report is back with another of its popular "Ask Ron Paul" episodes. Watch Dr. Paul handle four viewer questions in-depth and on-the-spot! Today the Liberty Report is back with another of its popular "Ask Ron Paul" episodes. Watch Dr. Paul handle four viewer questions in-depth and on-the-spot!

|

Time Text
Why We Discuss Secession 00:08:18
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
I understand that we're going to do a program a little differently, although we've done it before, that some of our viewers get to ask me a question.
question.
You're in the hot seat.
Yeah, so I'll have to brush up on this real fast.
We haven't done it for a while, but people always seem to enjoy it, and I know how much you like answering people.
So why don't we go ahead and get started right away and turn to the first one.
Don't make them too tough.
This is from Nick Cardin.
Should the idea of secession be talked about more as a means of decentralization?
Well, that's an easy one because it's certainly not only talked about, but it's practiced too.
But talking about it is important essentially because there's a right, there should be a right to secession.
It was assumed when our country was set up that secession would be legitimate.
And so it was demolished, of course, during the Civil War period.
But early in our history, it was assumed the Northeast part of our country thought they would like to secede.
But the right of secession, the right of leaving is so important.
So not only should we discuss it, we should protect the right.
That doesn't mean we have to endorse secession.
Matter of fact, right now, you know, we'd want to know what the circumstances are.
I do think about Texas seceding once in a while, but I want to know the circumstances because, you know, our state governments sometimes can be very abusive, too.
So you want to know what's going on.
But the right of secession, if that would have been maintained, even though never practiced, it would have restrained the federal government.
Just as nullification would do the same thing in a similar way, if the states could nullify bad federal laws, this would be very helpful.
And of course, jury nullification would be a method to undo some bad laws as well.
But secession should be there, and it should be available, and it should be talked about.
It should be understood, and people shouldn't be told this is horrible, that you are un-American.
But if you're pro-liberty, you're pro-secession.
And it's worked.
We seceded from England.
That was a good idea.
Unfortunately, it didn't go well to make that point during our Civil War.
But just recently in our history, what do you call the breaking up of the Soviet system?
That was secession.
They had control of a lot of Eastern Europe and many countries, and they essentially seceded from the Soviet Union.
And that, to me, was very, very good.
So I think that is fine.
But even now, the international governmental bodies like the European Union or the United Nations, these different places, we should always have a right to secede.
And that's what the British did.
They left the European Union.
It hasn't been finalized, and they're still working on it.
But that restrains big government from doing things that the individual states or the individual units don't like.
So secession should be there.
Matter of fact, if we'd have followed the original intent of the Declaration, there wouldn't have been too much talk about secession because most of the states would be rather independent and they would be loosely connected for a few things, maybe like a one-sound currency and maybe national defense, but it wouldn't be the monolith that we have today.
So the more we talk about secession and the best way, the better it is for us.
But the best way to do this is talk about the right to leave an organization.
And That is what we need to establish, and though that principle was well understood early on, I think we have forgotten about it, and we cannot depend on our government schools to actually teach that to our kids because they would be kicked out of school rather quickly if a teacher said, You know, we ought to have a right to secede if we don't like what they're doing.
It's almost heresy or un-American.
But it's very American to think that there's a voluntary aspect of people coming together and you should be able to leave if you decide that those in charge aren't doing the right thing.
So I'm all for secession, especially the right of secession.
Okay, well, let's move along then to question number two and see what else we have in store.
Uh-oh.
Stephan Hans asks you: is Trump the anti-war president?
That's an interesting question because I've thought about the in campaigns just who who's who's the anti-war candidate.
And my general theory is that the anti-war is a positive in our campaigns, no matter how militant the rhetoric is.
Just think back to Woodrow Wilson.
You know, I kept the American people out of war.
I'm not going to let your boys go overseas.
Same thing with Roosevelt.
And they came across as the peace candidate.
And even when Richard Nixon won, he was the one that was going to stop the Vietnam War, but didn't do it, of course, but he was seen as more peaceful.
And of course, in this recent election, there's been a recent article out not too long ago since the election that said that Hillary probably benefited more than most people suspect because she was not the peace candidate.
She was seen as the war candidate.
And so no matter how strong the rhetoric is, and no matter how strong the propaganda is, that you have to be pro-war and pro-military and all of these things that people are asking for, the truth is, how many people are going to say, I'm going to vote for this guy because I think he's going to start a war.
You know, they don't do that.
Subtly, many people say, well, you know, we'd like to end these wars.
Our problem, though, in this country is that the wars are started illegally, unconstitutionally, immorally, and they get in.
We get in so deep that it's very hard to get out.
And then they say, well, are you going to desert the troops or these people that died?
Our troops that have died, are they going to have died in vain if we don't come across with a victory?
So therefore, we have to march on.
Now, Donald Trump, I believe, benefited by being seen as the anti-war candidate.
But he was also said things that were very, very strong militarily.
He's appointed a lot of military people to office in the administration.
And I happen to think his policies are not the best policies for maintaining peace and order because I think he has switched around.
I like the idea that he talked with a softer tone dealing with Russia, and yet today the administration is going along with the strong rhetoric of the neoconservatives.
So even though I think he was seen as the candidate that was more likely to bring us peace, I think unfortunately the people who are promoting war antagonism and neoconservatism and our world presence have been winning the fight.
But you can't have this world view that we are the leaders of the world and we have a responsibility to provide dictatorship to countries and get rid of the bad guys and on and on that we get involved in the internal affairs of other nations because that is what leads to war.
And right now we've been talking about Sanctions, putting tougher sanctions on Russia and on Iran and on North Korea, saying, Well, this is necessary.
Well, I think those types of things are more likely to cause war than not being very strong on sanctions.
So it's a mixed bag.
I think Trump has benefited by coming across more sensibly as a candidate, but I think the control in the government and our foreign policy right now is being dictated by those that I consider quite dangerous and moving us toward a potential military conflict.
Influence Of Liberalism 00:02:26
And that I don't like.
Yeah.
All right, we'll move right along then to number three.
If we can get that going, and this is from Adam Rothstein.
Do you think the Republican Party will eventually evolve to become more libertarian?
Well, let's hope so.
You know, when you use the word libertarian, you might turn off some people because they tend to destroy good words.
Why is progressive a bad word?
But progressivism is a bad word.
They have been some of the worst status in the world.
They call themselves progressive.
And how about liberal?
If you're liberal, you believed in liberty, but nobody wants to be a liberal, especially if you lean toward constitutional conservatism and libertarianism.
Libertarianism, though, has withstood some of that criticism.
But libertarianism or the influence of individual liberty is very important to me and to what we're doing and our efforts to keep our country out of war.
So this is very important.
The question is: will the Republican Party become more libertarian?
And I say, yes, it will be, but it won't be by itself.
If it becomes more libertarian, the Democrats are going to become more libertarian.
It became the opposite, more progressive, liberal in the worst sense of the word.
But it wasn't the Democrats that led the charge.
It was both parties because it's the ideas that direct the policies.
And it's what's happening in our universities.
And it has been very progressive-liberal in a negative way.
And that is what dominated the parties.
Right now, there's more influence than ever about the ideas of liberty.
And it's creeping into the system.
There's been much more influence now than in a long time.
So when it comes, it will influence both parties.
For instance, economic policy taught by our universities for the past 50, 75 years has all been liberalism, big banks, central banking, paper money, Keynesianism, all of this.
This is what is spewed out by our universities and by our colleges.
So I would say that when the time comes that we are more believers, it will be a prevailing attitude by the people and they will influence both parties.
And we already have seen some signs of this.
Economic Policy's Influence 00:05:21
The inroads that we have made, unfortunately, maybe looking like they're being set back.
The influence that we have made on the war on drugs has been very good.
It's been bipartisan and they've mellowed their tone about how many people get put in prison.
Unfortunately, there's an effort to reverse that.
But no, when it comes, it will be bipartisan.
And it may be that the Republicans will lead a charge on economic liberty more so than the Democrats.
But right now, it seems like all the bad things going on too often are bipartisan.
We'd like to change that.
All right.
Moving along, this is the final challenge for you, the final question from our readers.
We have a lot more, obviously, than we can take on each show, and we appreciate everyone participating.
But if we can call up the last one, this is from Americaner.
How to solve the migrant crisis?
Simple little question, right?
The migrant crisis didn't come out of the clear blue.
I mean, it is probably an unintended consequences on the most part.
But it could be intended by some of the evil people in the world too that like to disrupt, and it's very disruptive.
Well, you're not going to get rid of the migrant crisis until our foreign policy.
We contribute a lot to the migrant crisis because of the Middle Eastern wars that would have been minimal and much smaller if we hadn't decided 15 years ago that we had to remake the Middle East.
And because that has been such a tragic era and such terrible things happening to this, and so many lives lost, so many people's homes lost, that people would walk hundreds, if not thousands of miles just to try to get out of there.
And look at what it's done to Europe.
Europe has a much greater crisis than we do.
And yet, it's not only as a result of bad foreign policy and the wars going on in the Middle East, it's this cultural Marxism that actually encourages.
They open up the doors and say, We love migrants, just come in.
That doesn't mean you hate migrants, but you try to understand it.
But if you subsidize them and pay for them and take care of them, and they have an excuse to leave someplace else, you're going to get a lot of them, and you're going to cause a crisis.
And that is what's going to happen.
Though people that have not lived under those conditions are going to resent it, and that's why there's more problems in Europe right now.
And we have that to a large degree as well.
But our tradition in America has been to accept immigrants and be pretty generous about it.
But recently, because we have committed so many of you know, we have caused so many of the problems in the Middle East, there's been sympathy for those people that have truly suffered, and we bring them in.
But they unfortunately get tremendous benefits from the people who are struggling to make a living in this country, and they get subsidized and they get moved in front of the line for some of their social benefit.
That is so different than normal, natural, voluntary immigration where people come in and they come in to get a job and go to work.
So there's a lot of things going on there.
But right now, I would say that the so-called crisis looks to me like it might have calmed down a little bit.
And there was Scott Ritter, the person we had on the program the other day, had an article out today that he's predicting that there's going to be no regime change in Syria.
Well, if that's the case, that means that ISIS is losing because it's ISIS and the terrorists and the radicals coming in, participating with our encouragement to overthrow that government.
And it also might be a reflection of in that area, ISIS has not been doing so well if they're making predictions that there will not be regime change.
So the pressure is off a little bit, but it's not going to disappear and you're not going to solve it until we as a people and as a government have a foreign policy that is completely different, that we are not interventionist.
We don't tell people how to live.
We don't get involved in border disputes.
And we don't get involved in the internal affairs of other nations.
And then we don't give subsidies to the people who come.
We don't reward people for coming.
And we try to promote our goodness by setting a good example, defending liberty here, providing a better economy.
Under those conditions, I am absolutely convinced that if you have those conditions, you really are looking for people to come and do some jobs.
The jobs go wanting.
So they're not invaders who are going to live off people who are struggling to pay their own bills.
So it's quite a bit different.
The answer is there, to wave a wand and get rid of this crisis ongoing is not easy.
But you don't have a chance of solving this problem unless you deal with our foreign policy and you deal with the subsidies that we give people when they do come here and recognize the fact that the greatest thing that we can offer as Americans is an opportunity to live in a free society.
That should be our goal.
Export Selection