Due to Hurricane Harvey, we are unable to broadcast the Liberty Report today. In lieu of the program, this is a speech that Dr. Paul gave earlier this year at The Ron Paul Institute/Mises Institute joint conference in Lake Jackson, TX.
Due to Hurricane Harvey, we are unable to broadcast the Liberty Report today. In lieu of the program, this is a speech that Dr. Paul gave earlier this year at The Ron Paul Institute/Mises Institute joint conference in Lake Jackson, TX.
Well, before I get started, I need to announce that we have somebody with us today who is the head of the Paul household.
That is my wife, Carol.
And also, it was mentioned that Lou and Daniel spent some time at the congressional office, but we also know that Norm Singleton spent some time there, and he's the president of the Campaign for Liberty.
And also, Jeff, I believe he spent some time there, and they're all doing great things as soon as they got out of Washington, and they continued.
So it is wonderful.
But it's also very nice to be able to visit with a friend, David Stockman.
We knew each other early on and did some work in the Congress, but then he got busy and he went off for fortune and fame.
But just in recent years, now we've become reacquainted and working together.
And David, it's been great to see you again and glad you came to visit with us today.
But I want to welcome everybody to this metropolis of Lake Jackson.
I mean, this is fantastic.
And also, you know, I'm very particular about our crowds.
You know, I go where the young people are, and I am just so glad that here's another college crowd and young people are here.
So welcome to the program.
But I do speak to young people, but I assume we're all young people because liberty is a young idea.
It's really not something that has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
And the benefits of liberty have just been rather recent.
I think of the Industrial Revolution as a consequence of an understanding about economic liberty and the tremendous advancements that have existed with the Industrial Revolution.
But I've always wondered, well, why don't we advance in the social revolution?
If we learn how to build so many wonderful things and the standard of living goes up for so many people, we have all these luxuries.
Why is it that we haven't figured it out how to stay out of killing each other?
So at the same time, we've had all this advancement that helped us in technological things in the Industrial Revolution.
We've had more killing than ever before.
Just think of the 20th century with all that advancement.
I can't help but think about my dad talking to me about when his dairy started, the family dairy started, he delivered milk in a horse and buggy, you know, horse and wagon.
And that was at the beginning of the last century.
So it's so recent.
And yet we haven't advanced very much in this social sphere of how do we get along with people.
And I am an optimist because I believe we should be able to do that.
And when you look at the history of mankind, it's really so very young, especially if you decide to figure what part of the existence of the universe, the solar system, have mankind existed.
You know, it's not even hardly a drop in the bucket of a drop in the ocean.
It's such a short period of time.
And most of the advancement has been in the last 300 years.
And there are some significant events that have occurred there, especially with our revolution.
There was an emphasis on individual liberty and there were changes, but there's something that comes up short on why we don't do a better job in avoiding the wars.
Besides, I have a conviction about what we're talking about, and that is peace.
And I think peace is popular, very popular, not just among us, but I think with all people.
But then the big question is, if peace is popular and people really want it, why are there so many wars?
And it really is a serious question about what is going on, especially when I go to the campuses and talk to the young people.
They're not saying, yeah, let's have another war.
We like to go off and get exposed to the killing and we want all the debt to deal with and we want to deal with inflation.
No, that group of individuals generally are less pro-war than the rest.
I can remember one time when I made a charge that this particular piece of legislation was pro-war and it was on the side of the Republicans that were promoting this piece of legislation.
And boy, I had one ex-government military official come up to me.
He was so annoyed.
He said, I am not pro-war.
It really, they don't see themselves that way.
And yet they are pro-war.
But if I had to look back and guess on the number of people I've met throughout my lifetime, from grade school on up, and the many people I've met in the last 15 or 20 years in politics, tens of thousands and exposed to hundreds of thousands of people.
And I would say that 90% of the people that I come into contact with are really pro-peace and peace is what they want.
Then why is it if 90% of the people really want to live in peace, why don't we live in peace?
10% of the bad people have a greater influence than the 90%.
In some ways, that is the case.
Our problem is not so much the people become supportive of war or promote the war.
Too many of them are very apathetic and complacent and they go along.
But the big problem is that the people, the citizens, the people who suffer from the war, don't start the war.
The real problem is that we have to understand it's the government and government policies that causes the war, and that's what we have to restrain.
So I think what happens, governments have been around for a long time, is that people who have psychopathic personalities and aggressive personalities and enjoy telling other people how to live is that people who have been around for a long time and have been around for a long time.
whether it's in a social sense, economic sense, or in a military sense, they like power.
And there's an opening and the people themselves don't have a resistance and governments tend to have over the centuries always assumed a lot more power.
And this just opens up the door for the people who want power and even those who go with good intentions to Washington, they are consumed with this attitude and before you know it, they're part of the system.
There have been so many individuals that I've seen over the years who had very good intentions about going to Washington and they believe basically like we do, but they didn't maintain that position and they're not like the few that stick to their principles.
So they go and then they're influenced and all of a sudden the whole system is political.
For them to do good and promote our views, they have to be in a position of power and influence in Washington.
So they succumb to become more moderate and say, well, I have to give in.
The one term I don't like is moderation in politics, because I think that is a sacrifice of principles.
What I like to think about in politics as far as making corrections because there's so much imperfections is to work with coalitions.
And that is, there are a lot of people that might not be true libertarians, but they have a set of principles that they'd like to see a lot less killing and a lot less war.
And there's no reason in the world we can't be talking as I do to the Dennis Kuciniches of the world and others who will stand up for peace.
And this, to me, I think, is real the answer.
Moderates, when they come together, they have to sacrifice what they believe in.
Let's say you have a liberal in the negative sense and conservatives in the negative sense, but each having some positive things.
And they come together, but they have to give up their beliefs.
So they sacrifice their true conviction.
Now, when I think of the relationship I've had with Dennis Kucinchich, we never ask each other to sacrifice anything.
We ignore the things that we disagree with and we come together on the issues that we do agree with and we work in that capacity.
But that helps a little bit.
But why is it that we still keep losing the battle?
Well, the one thing is, as I am convinced, the libertarian principle can solve a lot of problems.
If we would adapt to the principle of non-aggression, not initiating any force against each other or other, and we had people really accept this, it can solve so many problems, social problems, economic problems, peace problems, and everything else.
But if we do that, the big problem is as soon as they get into government, the government doesn't have to obey the same rules.
And we can't, with the libertarian principle, although I have such strong positive feelings about this principle, that one thing it can't solve is the problem of good and evil.
You know, Adam said that, you know, I've given, we, we, the founders, have given you a republic if you can keep it.
And he said that the moral standings of the people will make the difference.
When the people become immoral, the system just doesn't work.
And yet, at the same time, if the people who are immoral, the problem is they get in government.
So our job is first, if we can't solve the problem of good and evil, some people call me naive because I'm too optimistic about how people should act if they would just accept a few principles.
But I think good and evil is going to exist and the evil people are going to be out there.
So the really, the big challenge for us is, of course, to keep the evil people out of government.
You know, that's where the problem comes from.
But I think the founders tried to do that.
They tried to set up the rules and yet there's always this temptation, the temptation of power, power corrupting.
And they get in office and they give in and they move over and they sacrifice.
And so I think the founders basically failed.
If they had been successful, our Constitution would be a much more powerful instrument.
And it didn't take a long time to have some early erosion.
I think Jefferson realized that early on, that there was an erosion.
And even those who said be careful about the Constitutional Convention and cautious about opening up the door to the growth of government and that that has happened.
So the individuals, you know, sacrifice too much and allow governments to do this.
So how are we, you know, if people were alert, we would only send the very good people who would not be tempted and do bad things in Washington.
We wouldn't send the bad people and we wouldn't send people who would succumb to the temptation.
But that doesn't seem to have worked as well.
So it's back to the problem of how do we limit the government.
I think the key to it is to have a set of rules that are more binding, but it has to be supported by the people.
What should the role of government be?
And that is the question.
I think the founders asked that and they tried to redefine it.
But I think we have to ask that question and try to define what should the role of government be.
I have a very complicated answer to what the role of government ought to be.
The role of government and the purpose of government should be to protect liberty.
That's it.
And that's what our goal should be.
So of course, what would be the step there?
Well, we have to repeal 87%.
I just picked that out of the air.
87% of what our federal government does because you wouldn't need all this stuff because what government does, whether it's economic intervention, running monetary policy, regulatory things that are always supposed to help the people and take care of the consumers, or a foreign policy and making the world safe for democracy and spread American exceptionalism, you know, that can't work.
You have to have a system where the government is strictly limited.
What would it mean?
It would mean that, first off, we should be able to absolutely have a position in a country like ours that a very powerful right, and I put it in quotes, an ability for the organizations such as the states that are put together for our country, they should always have the right to secede.
Now, does that mean we have to be for secession and every state has to leave?
Well, right now it'd be hard for me to deny anybody's right to leave, but you don't have to.
It's just the right to secede that is so important.
That would hold the federal government in check.
The government would have to be careful.
But even if they just had nullification, which is a strong issue of Jefferson, just so we as a people and the local people and local governments, the state governments, if you didn't like what the feds were doing and if they're violating the Constitution, that you ought to be able to opt out and nullify it.
Why We Must Secede00:02:09
And that would hold a big check on the federal government as well.
And the neat part about this is it's coming because we are going to have chaos.
We're going to have economic chaos.
We're going to have the political fallout of our foreign interventionism.
The world will turn against us and we are going to have an opportunity for a lot of nullification.
It's already starting.
I think it's fantastic that the issue of the ridiculous war on drugs is coming to an end because the states and the people are nullifying these laws and they're saying stay away.
I hope that doesn't get reversed with this administration, but at least we're making progress there, and I think that is great.
And we have groups of people now, and I just recently was out in Arizona because they're passing a bill out there, and it's very popular, trying to follow the Constitution on the money issue because the directive is to the states.
The states are not allowed to use anything other than the gold and silver as legal tender.
So who broke the law?
The government broke the law.
They were explicit in the Constitution that you can't counterfeit.
You can't debase the currency.
And they were very explicit on this.
But yeah, we're not allowed to debase the currency, but the government is.
And that is why this principle that if you and I can't do something, the basic bastia principle, if you and I can't steal from people, we can't debase the currency, and we can't rob and kill and do all these things.
Why in the world have we allowed our governments to do that?
We have to curtail that power.
So if we just can't go out, you know, just killing people because it's against the law, it's immoral.
Why do we allow our governments to do this constantly with bombs and missiles and threats and boycotts and all the things that we do?
Moral Responsibility00:09:35
We have to be able to apply these basic principles that have been understood.
But it's turned out that our governments did this to hold us in check, to say, you can't do this, you can't do this, and if you bend the rules, we're going to get you.
But they're exempt.
And this sucks into people who love that power.
And the people are too lackadaisical and they're too apathetic.
One of the signs during the campaign that I loved because they would put a sign up, Ron Paul cured my apathy.
And I took it as a compliment because I think that is what we need.
We need to get rid of the apathy.
We need to stand up and be engaged.
And a lot of people say, well, you know, what should I do?
What should I do?
And I said, do whatever you want to do, but just do something.
But Leonard Reed, who was somebody that I admired at the Foundation for Economic Education, he says, our first responsibility, and I took this seriously in the 50s when I started looking at these issues.
He says, you've got to understand the issues.
You've got to know how to explain these things, the best you can do.
And I feel like I keep trying to do better in explaining all the issues.
And he said, then what do I do?
He says, don't worry about it.
His answer to the crowds would be, then don't worry about it.
If you know the issues and you want to be involved, and he says, somebody will find you.
Fortunately, we found Lou Rockwell and he started the Mises Institute.
I mean, this is what we need.
And somebody else must have been awfully bored.
He says, I'm going to do something.
I'm going to vote for Ron Paul no matter what.
And Bill Green actually did.
He gave us a vote.
So, no, everybody has a responsibility.
And I've often talked about the responsibility of us as individuals because I consider this an exceptional audience.
I think that we need 8% of the population to really change the world, not 51%, 8% to lead the charge.
And I think in a group like this, you all belong to that 8%.
So that is the goal, is for the 8% to be identified.
Right now, there's an 8%, and they're in charge, and that's our big problem.
And they just are running roughshod over us.
But I see a lot of positive things happening.
I see it on the campuses.
Believe me, I do not believe that Bernie Sanders owns the campuses.
He might own the professors and a few other people who are preaching all this Marxism, cultural Marxism, and they're present, but that's a different story.
I meet too many young people on the campuses that are very much involved.
Take, for instance, the Young Americans for Liberty was an outgrowth of our first presidential campaign.
They have over 900 chapters of YAL chapters in colleges around the country now.
Thomas Massey, he left here earlier because he's on his way to Denver to talk to a YAL chapter.
And they're enthusiastic and they're very good.
So there's a lot of things.
The ideas have to change first.
And people keep thinking, well, how are we going to, in the campaign, well, how are we going to change the Republican Party?
It's totally irrelevant.
And it's totally irrelevant, for that matter, for the Libertarian Party.
And it's irrelevant with the Democratic Party.
It doesn't even count.
What really counts is what is the understanding?
What have they learned?
What is liberty all about?
And that's where the progress is.
Because I think that we have an institute like the Mises Institute.
There are others out there.
There's a bunch of people doing this, and the attitudes are changing.
I think it's somewhat like it was in the 1930s.
Do you know Roosevelt?
If we were living and voting in 1932, I think a lot of us would have been tempted to vote for Roosevelt.
He was for the gold standard, balanced budget, low taxes, and the whole thing is, but he must have been very knowledgeable by fake news and fake stories because he was lying through his teeth, especially when he was going to keep us out of war.
But behind the scenes, the universities were, they were introducing the Keynesian philosophy.
We're not going to advocate ruthless communism.
But Mises was very clear.
He said that socialism, the whole principle of socialism and government controls, will fail.
And of course, he did.
He wouldn't have been a bit surprised about 89 and 90 to see the collapse of communism.
So he also had an opinion about interventionism.
Interventionism is a term I like to use a lot because I don't want the government to intervene in your personal life.
As long as you don't hurt anybody, it's your business what religion you have or if you don't have a religion.
And that is why libertarianism brings all kinds of people together with different views.
Religion doesn't matter.
Bring them together.
And one form of government that I like the least is the theocracies.
And I'm a religious person, but I don't want a theocracy.
And certainly, we don't want our governments telling other countries what to do, even when they're imperfect.
One time we had this debate, it was an anti-China discussion even 10, 15 years ago, and they wanted to punish.
Well, we can't do that until they prove they're not violating civil liberties in China.
I said, what about, how about protecting civil liberties here at home?
That's our responsibility.
So there's a lot of good things happening.
And I think in the 30s, guess what?
The old right, there were a few, they grew even more as time went on.
And fortunately, there was a group that held it together through the late 30s and the 40s and in the 50s.
But, you know, the interventionists, they won out cold.
They took over the universities.
They took over the media.
And it was a way that they could get power.
The same type of individual, this psychopathic personality that feels like they are the elitist and they know how to run the world.
They won.
But right now, I believe it's been reversed.
I think there's more and more people now advancing to this newer stage where libertarian ideas are so attractive and the chaos is going to be so bad that there's going to be an opening for us.
And that is why all of us have a responsibility.
I am convinced in my own mind, this is very personal, that because you are more knowledgeable and more understanding and more anxious to help, you come to events like this, you help the Mises Institute,
you help the Ron Paul Institute, and you promote these causes and you're well educated in this field, I think you have a greater moral responsibility if you look at it because you know the masses out there they're apathetic and it's hard to stir them.
We just need to get them apathetic enough that they won't resist us and we get 50, 51% to endorse us is what we want.
You do need their endorsement.
The masses have to endorse the ideas.
But I think it's just fantastic what is really happening.
But the responsibility, they still say, what do I do?
Well, figure it out.
There's something to do.
And like Leonard Reed said, we have to be well informed, self-informed, know what's going on, and keep studying and try to answer the question, the jobs will come along.
And to me, it's amazing.
I go around the country and there's so many people have started different organizations.
Some run for office, but I've not been overly enthusiastic about that.
They'll come and say, all right, you've convinced me, so I want to go to Congress like you did.
I said, they'll say, what should I do?
And he's, you know, a college kid or something.
I said, don't do it.
But that doesn't mean I'm not for it.
It's just I wanted to have them hone in because if the goal is set to go to Congress, the whole ball game is over because then you'll go to the party and how do I raise money?
How do I organize?
How do I get along?
How do I get on the committee?
How do I compromise to be able to promote the cause of liberty?
And it's all over.
So that shouldn't be the goal.
But if you're interested in it and like it, I think supporting candidates, running for office, winning elections.
I mean, look, to have Thomas Massey there, I think is just great.
And he was somebody that both Rand and I strongly supported before he ran.
Opportunity for Openness00:12:40
So I think that's very valuable.
But just to run to run and think that they're going to be, if they're very weak as candidates and they think that they can be a moderate president, you know, present their case in a moderate way, that's not going to work.
The people want to hear the true story.
That's why it's very ripe and very open for this message.
And when we see the mess coming on, I think that we need to be prepared not only intellectually and politically.
I think we have to be prepared in other ways too.
And that is why I don't think it's such a bad idea to own a little gold and silver.
That seems like a pretty good way to be prepared for what's coming.
You know, they've ridiculed me a little bit on TV more than once.
But they'd ridicule me when I would come up with this gold and silver thing.
What are you talking about?
And they say, yeah, but you didn't, point me, you didn't invest in the Dow Jones when it was skyrocketing.
Look at all that money you could have made.
I said, Yeah, and look at how many people lose the money too.
I said, Yeah, I was rather foolish when I discovered what was going on.
The moment of the confirmation of my suspicions occurred on August 15th, 1971.
And that, of course, is when the Bratton Woods agreement just disintegrated.
So I thought, even gold at that time was illegal.
I thought, this is the time you buy gold.
You start buying.
Yeah, I tell them on the television.
I said, yeah, I said, I was so foolish then.
I was so naive about this gold.
I started buying this gold at $35 an ounce.
But it was interesting how you bought gold back then.
And some of you may remember how you do it because it was illegal in Russia, Soviet Union, and the United States.
You weren't allowed to buy gold.
People weren't allowed to older.
What was the first thing the tyrants wanted to do in our country?
Give us an income tax, establish a central bank, get rid of the gold standard, and look at what's happened.
And so that means the door is open when you have the central bank.
Then the politicians are rewarded.
The more they spend and the more they buy the people's votes, the more likely they are to get reelected.
And the payment will be some other time.
And then they still adapt to the Keynesian theory.
Oh, deficits don't matter.
They don't matter.
Debt isn't bad.
And they just keep doing this.
But in the 1970s, what we had to do in order to not have to go to jail for buying a gold coin is that you could buy numismatic coins.
Well, there weren't that many, and they were a lot more expensive than just regular gold.
But guess who came to our rescue?
The Mexican government.
The Mexican government started minting a numismatic coin, and they backdated it to 1947.
It was enough years to be numismatic.
So you could go out and buy a bullion coin at a spot price.
And we never were fearful that we were going to get arrested for doing this terrible, terrible thing of owning a gold coin.
So that generally, I mean, in reality, and especially in the midst of a financial crisis, I do think that the markets are more powerful than government.
They're more powerful than the central bank.
And I do believe the Fed is on its way out, not because they're going to pass my legislation to abolish the Fed, but because they will disintegrate, they will self-destruct, and they will become non-functional.
The only thing that counts is how are we going to rebuild?
What kind of a monetary system?
Are we going to release that to the market to let the market determine it?
Are we going to have a strict rule that governments are not allowed to initiate force?
They can't do anything that we can't do, which is really what is necessary.
But even the war clause, you know, in the Constitution now, and members of Congress still take the oath every year.
And since 1945, they've never had a declaration of war, and the people are apathetic.
We need to get rid of the apathy, obviously.
But I think the opportunity is coming.
The opportunity for liberty, the door is going to be wide open for us.
And we need to be energized.
And everybody in this room needs to get their 100 people lined up soon and get them involved one way or the other.
And I love it when the young kids come.
And I was fascinated in the presidential campaigns because in the congressional office, and David probably remembers the parents coming in with young kids for a civics lesson.
They bring them in, and this is your congressman.
And the kids were like, hey, they weren't interested in a civics lesson.
But after the first campaign, the parents were coming in with their kids, but the kids were out in front, dragging the parents in to meet me.
And they were really excited.
And they'd come in and they'd talk about monetary policy.
And they'd talk about the Federal Reserve.
And I'd look at him.
I said, how old are you?
He says, oh, I'm 14.
I said, well, you're way ahead of almost every congressman here.
You have a better understanding about monetary policy.
So there's a lot of room out there, but you can't get discouraged because it seems overwhelming.
No, it's not a numbers game.
It's a quality game, a game that we play.
And, you know, and somebody argued that, well, we still think that Bernie Sanders has more supporters than you libertarians have.
Yeah, but his group doesn't have the quality as our group has.
It's quality of character and quality of education and understanding.
And, you know, we can be critical.
I do think that most people are going to be apathetic, but look at it as a positive.
We just don't have to worry about them.
But get the position out there, and they will not fight if they think it's in their best interest.
So they have to be convinced it's in their best interest.
So we have to convince people that we don't need to go to war out of their best interest.
We don't have to go to war because the left has convinced us and the warmongers have convinced us that we need to be involved out of our best interest.
Our best interests are never served by war unless it's a desperate case for self-defense, which doesn't come very often.
And also on economic policy, they're going to have to realize that if you want to protect people from falling, have a safety net and falling through the cracks.
Well, the only thing that government does is make the cracks bigger.
And they keep falling in and they say, well, we need more cracks or something.
But that's all going to be an opportunity for us.
But I think the number of people that are waking up, very, very many.
And I think that is optimistic.
I think it's in the American tradition.
I think it's a morally correct position.
I think that it hasn't been truly tested.
I see this as something new and exciting when I look at history.
You know, two, three hundred years.
Somebody said, well, that's pretty idealistic.
That's not going to happen this year or next year.
No, it isn't.
It might take a while, but there's no reason why we can't keep planting the seeds and moving in that direction.
But the most important thing is that we can describe what it should be like.
Describe what government should be in this advanced stage of civilization.
So I think that civilization so far has been detrimental.
So one is to challenge the current understanding of the role of government and the size of government, and that has to be challenged.
And then we have to be very emphatic that those governments that have us involved, that we can disengage, get out of it.
This is why I think what's happening in Europe is fantastic.
Let it disintegrate.
Let every country go back to its own.
I thought, you know, they say a lot of people criticize us for being, you know, defend secession.
Well, you mean to say you don't like the secession of Eastern Europe from the Soviet system?
That's great secession.
You mean you don't like the secession from the United States from the British Empire?
No, that's what we want.
But we always want the right to secede and leave.
And if we have larger associations, they should always be voluntary.
But everything should be voluntary, no use of force.
I think it solves the problem of immigration, the whole work.
You know, we talk about immigration and migration and how difficult it is.
And if you don't have, if you don't welcome 20 million people into your country and then tax one group to take care of them, then you're a bigot and you hate people.
Well, think of it this way.
We can be very open-minded about migration and immigrants.
Think of it this way.
If there's somebody that knocks on your door or doesn't knock on your door and said the rules are we can come in here and stay here and they have a right to it.
Well, when they do that to a country, I don't think they have a right to this to just come in.
The worst part is, even especially on the migration thing, people come in and they're of questionable character, and then you're charged to take care of them.
They get thousands and thousands of dollars of bonuses.
So the system is not viable.
But I don't think, I think the libertarian position, if you had a libertarian free market economy, you're going to be looking for workers.
You're going to want people to come in.
But it would have to be with the acceptance of a free market system, freedom to set wages and prices and having sound money and limited government and get rid of 99% of all the federal regulations there are.
And it would be so different in attitude.
But most of all, I want to close with this, even though I've already alluded to it, and I think it's the most wonderful thing about liberty is it brings people together.
You know, it doesn't divide us.
That is why people who have totally different viewpoints in religion or anything else, and the other people who may be very religious, some people have one idea and definition of marriage, another person has a different definition.
And some people have a different definition on what the sign should be on our bathrooms, and somebody else has other.
But if you were in strictly libertarian society, you'd just let them do it.
But you can't force other people, and you can't use tax money in order to force standards on other people.
So with that, I just want to close with the congratulations to the Mises Institute and all of you for coming and all the support you've given us.
And that though things look dire and we have a mess in our foreign policy, it's been worse in our history.
It's been worse.
It's dangerous out there.
But once again, I think what our job is, is to define the goals that we have.
You can't just criticize what's going on.
You have to say, well, what would it be like?
What should the responsibilities be?
And is it achievable?
And I would say, yes, it is.
We need to set the standards, set the goals.
And yes, it's an imperfect world.
But what the most important thing that we can do to allow this to work is put very, very strict limitations on the power and the control of any and all governments over the people.
Liberty is popular.
Thank you very much.
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks will join the Ron Paul Institute Conference 2017.
Please don't miss this great opportunity to see Ron Paul speak live.
Everyone will have an opportunity to meet with him, take a picture, to remember this very special event.