With sanctions back on Iran, will US dollar hegemony be the first victim? How many civilians will suffer for the Trump Administration's obsession with "regime change" for Iran?
Today's Liberty Report was recorded in front of a live audience from the Mises Institute Symposium on alternative media at Brazosport College on Nov. 5, 2018.
With sanctions back on Iran, will US dollar hegemony be the first victim? How many civilians will suffer for the Trump Administration's obsession with "regime change" for Iran?
Today's Liberty Report was recorded in front of a live audience from the Mises Institute Symposium on alternative media at Brazosport College on Nov. 5, 2018.
With sanctions back on Iran, will US dollar hegemony be the first victim? How many civilians will suffer for the Trump Administration's obsession with "regime change" for Iran?
Today's Liberty Report was recorded in front of a live audience from the Mises Institute Symposium on alternative media at Brazosport College on Nov. 5, 2018.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
And I want your audience to know that the applause was spontaneous.
Thank you.
It is a delight to be here today doing our Liberty Report.
And guess what?
Our co-host is Daniel McAdams.
Daniel, welcome to the program.
How are you this morning, Dr. Paul?
The one thing that we have noticed that people will tune in to get some information.
That is our goal to get on the news.
We pick the news out early in the morning in order to go over it.
And today, broadcasting from Clugh.
Matter of fact, it's interesting to note that the campus of the Brasses Wood College, Brassesport College, is in Lake Jackson and Clugh.
It's an unusual thing.
So we're broadcasting from Lake Jackson, Clugh.
Our office is in Clugh.
But today we're on the campus.
And what we're hoping to do is do a program, but because we have a live audience, hopefully that we don't get long-winded because we want to save a few minutes for some questions from the audience and prove that we are a true live audience.
So this is wonderful.
But today, the subject that I've chosen to bring up to get Daniel to do all the discussion and answer all the questions, but the subject I want to talk about in this report has to do with a subject we talk about quite frequently, and that's Iran.
Iran is in the news.
Tomorrow, the sanctions are going back on Iran.
Of course, we complained about it when we took them off.
Now, I didn't do a lot of complaining, but I should have complained in 1953 because I was starting to pay attention to Iran.
But that was when we started meddling and messing around with Iran, and we have ever since.
But I remember one time I was on Fox News Network, and there was a famous interviewer on there.
I won't say his name, but he's not there any longer.
But I was doing this interview, and he was challenging me.
Well, what about this wrong?
I said, well, first, what you have to realize is we've been messing around with Iran since 1953.
And he cut me off.
He said, we're not here for a history lesson.
And, of course, that's exactly what we need, is a history lesson on Iran.
So we participated in coup back then, and then we subsequently have messed around, and they are the top-notch enemy.
The one thing that we can give our current president credit for, he's been very consistently antagonistic toward Iran.
So from the very beginning, he wanted to get rid of the nuclear agreement, and he did that just about eight months ago.
He was May of this particular year.
And we talked about that a lot at the time and explaining why we thought it was a good idea.
We're not so much for treaties and agreements, but if there is agreement on a book that makes a little bit of sense and trying to cut down on nuclear war, you don't want to undermine it.
And so when there was a threat that we would get out of that, we of course talked about it in a very negative way and that we shouldn't get out of it.
But we did get out of it.
And guess what?
Tomorrow, the sanctions are going back on as strong as ever.
Except There are a few questions about what the effect will be and whether there will be any waivers and this sort of thing and how the responses will be.
What is Europe going to do to the European Union?
What will the other countries that are involved that didn't want to get out of the treaty?
What are they going to do?
What's going to happen to price of oil?
There's a lot of things going on.
So I think this next week coming could be a big week for news.
And that's our subject for today.
We want to sort this out.
And Daniel, what do you think about all this?
Well, actually, I mean, it becomes sort of comic theater because yesterday, I believe it was, President Trump tweeted out a picture of himself.
And I've not seen the show, but it was a Game of Thrones type of writing on it saying, sanctions coming.
And it's almost making a joke out of what sanctions really are.
Sanctions are designed to make life as miserable as possible for a civilian population in the hopes that they will rise up and overthrow their government.
There's nothing funny about it.
Ask Madeline Albright.
Right.
And matter of fact, it does exactly the opposite.
If you want to unify, and that's what's happened in Iran, where there were always dissenters in Iran that would like to overthrow the authoritarians.
But every time we would interfere, what generally happened was they rally around, just like we in America, you know, with all our imperfections, when we see an outsider coming in, I think the American people sensed this on 9-11.
Maybe they didn't fully understand what was going on, but the American people were together because somebody was attacking them.
That's what happens.
And so it backfires.
It's an unintended consequence.
And of course, this subject came up when we talked about lowback in the presidential campaign because it wasn't lowback from a foreign policy that we're talking about right now.
But this effort is going to, I think, introduce opposition, not only maybe more unification in Iran.
But one part, one thing that I try to watch carefully is combining financial events along with foreign policy events.
And one thing that's happened now since we've been unnecessarily fighting with Russia and restoring the Cold War, which, quite frankly, doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but always look for something positive in all this negative stuff.
Russia's Power Play00:15:30
They're reacting to us.
I keep thinking, maybe this is a blessing in the skies.
The more we do, the more antagonism this, and the more they prepare to undermine the world empire.
I love America.
I love our liberty.
I love our Constitution.
I do not love our empire, and I do not love the neocons who run our empire.
And we've been sort of struggling with what do we think would happen with the Europeans.
At first, the Europeans were very strong because they put a lot at stake in negotiating the JCPOA, which is one of the few good things that President Obama did, very successful things.
They put a lot of political energy in that.
It was working out well for them.
They were trading with Iran.
The Germans were in particular reaping the benefits of trade with none of the downside.
The Iranians didn't say, oh, who now we're going to go attack you?
But we sort of had the consensus, if I can speak for us, that the Europeans would eventually crumble, though.
They're not ready for the end of being under the tutelage of the United States yet.
But I just wonder, and I don't know the answer to this, but the Merkel era is over.
You know, she retains power, but it's very, very symbolic and limited power.
She sees the rise of populist parties on her right and left, and the power of the Merkel government, I think, will be severely curtailed.
Will the Europeans be able to hold steady?
I think the chance that they might be able to move more steady than anything, I think they're going to extend strength.
And I think their reaction is going to be more economic than it will be military because they're not a military power.
But since we have put sanctions on Russia, they have been developing.
I don't know, I don't think anybody knows exactly how far along they are, but they want an alternative to SWIFT, and that is the financial exchange of money around the world.
So that is a powerful weapon from a country that has the reserve currency of the world.
So we have tremendous power as long as the dollar holds up.
That right now is being challenged because the Russians, of course, are claiming that they're moving along and they're looking for the day when they can use alternative exchanges worldwide and with China and India and Turkey and these different countries.
And right now, you know, one thing that is in the news is that there was a question of waivers for these sanctions.
So I just wonder whether Trump is getting a little bit nervous about this, that it may have gone too far.
And the waivers may change all this, and that would be a sign that we're not quite as powerful.
But one thing that our foreign policy does, first we get involved with the sanctions, which is just economic aggravation for no reason at all.
And right along with this, the tariffs.
You know, tariffs are meant to punish the people so they rebel against their leadership.
But people have to remember, when you put tariffs on China, and it's always described by the administration, well, China will have to pay.
China will have to pay these terrorists.
We pay the tariffs.
Our prices go up.
It's just a horrible thing.
And, you know, we have the foreign policy of sanctions and tariffs, and then the other thing of our military might.
And I've argued that unfortunately we give our opposition around the world or our so-called allies and a challenge.
We tell them, you do what we tell you, and we're going to be your friends, and we're going to send you a lot of money.
And we'll put you on our list.
It's in that foreign aid.
But if you don't, we're going to bomb you.
And unfortunately, that is a very bad policy.
And it's not too often that we hear that the real offer ought to be that of peaceful relations with anybody who desires peaceful relations with us.
And you mentioned the waivers, and it was interesting.
There was an article toward the end of the week because it appeared that Trump was maybe coming to his senses a little bit, realizing that the more power you exert, the less you have in reserves.
And he was talking about issuing some limited waivers to some countries that were waivering on support.
And no sooner did he do that than what happened?
The neocons, who he thought he was appeasing by his Iran policy, came out with their clause, fully extended.
No waivers to anyone.
You know, the other question that we try to answer and we address, and I don't think anybody has an absolute answer, but why is the pressure in the direction of such a consistent attitude that's negative against Iran?
Then they come up with this idea that, well, the Iranians, they're the chief sponsor of terrorism.
They're the most terrorist nation around the world ever.
And even more than Saudi Arabia, oh yeah, Saudi Arabia, they're our best friends.
What an inconsistency.
We're doing all that wheeling and dealing.
Does anybody think it might have to do with oil and something like that?
Yeah, it just could be.
But this is, it makes no sense to have this.
And there's other factors on that.
But I think there's our allegiance for economic reasons, mostly with Saudi Arabia.
It's also our close alliance with Israel.
And there's also our policy of Overthrowing the Iranian government, and we just get together and pile on on this, and there's tremendous pressure.
But their arguments are so flimsy, it's surprising they get so far, driving us to the point where, no, I don't think we're going to go to war against Iran.
I don't think we're going to march in.
I don't think that's going to happen, but I do worry about the collapse of what's coming because this is unsustainable.
People are going to turn against it.
They're going to turn against us because they're sick and tired of our foreign policy.
They're sick and tired of us throwing our weight around with the dollar.
And they're going to be sick and tired of taking our paper money and buying our debt and doing us a favor in that manner.
So this is just more mischief, but it's building, and there is a division.
And Daniel's pointing it out.
What are the Europeans going to do?
There's a few European oil companies that said they're worried about the bottom line.
I say, we don't want to antagonize Americans because they'll take and ruin our business and the use of SWIFT and the exchange of foreign exchange if we don't do what they tell us.
But there's a lot of people who like the idea of trading with Iran.
Matter of fact, there's a lot of people that in Europe that would like to see why do we have to build this war and antagonism towards Syria and Russia.
I mean, the Europeans, they're already getting a lot of oil and trade.
It was the wonderful thing for the collapse of the Soviet system.
And wow, just think of opening up trade.
I never believed we'd be so stupid to do what we're doing right now because there's a lot of trade going on.
Just think Russia builds our rockets to go to the space station.
You'd think they'd wake up and say, well, maybe we're supposed to be friends with them.
But there's a lot of gamesmanship that goes on.
But the policy that we talk about on this program is consistently that of non-intervention and friendship with people and not antagonizing people.
And also, we interconnected with the whole idea of sound economic policies.
And if you want to have better exchange and trade with countries, you shouldn't have these fluctuating fiat currencies where there's 150 currencies and we try to dominate them.
They ought to sit back and decide, well, maybe there was something to this 6,000-year argument that maybe you should use precious metals with your money.
Well, you know, Dr. Paul, you often talk about unintended consequences.
And it's just sort of ironic because our policies in Iran, our policies about the SWIFT process, are having the unintended consequence of destroying our primacy in the world.
You know, the so-called American exceptionalist primacy in the world by attacking Iran and destroying the SWIFT system and giving rise to an alternative, we've lost that very power that they're celebrating.
That's right.
You know, I don't, we can go on because we have a lot to talk about as far as this issue goes all foreign policy.
But I want to take advantage of this audience that we have, our neighbors and friends.
And even though we're in Lake Jackson and have some neighbors here, we have a lot of people from different parts, not only of the country, but the world, have come to our conference here.
And even our webpage, we worry about spreading our message.
We have a large audience that's overseas.
So what I'd like to do is start now and see if we can get some questions and we'll proceed with that.
We can get our assistants to help us out.
Here we go.
I was wondering your opinion on the Chinese system that's been set up to sell oil in yuan and then have it immediately available to convert that to gold.
It seems to me that that's one of the strongest attacks on the Swiss system and the primacy of the dollar.
I think it's great.
Hopefully it works.
I don't know how far along they are.
But in many ways, it's similar to what Russia is trying to do.
And if Russia devises another system, I don't know why they can't get together because Russia would like the Chinese to use what they're doing on exchange.
But using the wand to put some gold back into it, I think it's fantastic.
And this is one thing that I've argued domestically is to have competition in currencies.
And what we need, though, is international competition in currencies.
And that would involve exactly what China's doing.
So I have trouble figuring out just how far along are they because it's a technology that is developing.
But the greatest incentive for them to do that is our foreign policy, which makes no sense.
And we just are aggravating people.
You know, up until five years ago or so, people were sort of content.
But right now they are not content with us.
And like I said, I'd like to turn that into a positive.
Not being content means that we have to prepare ourselves for a much better system.
Daniel?
Yeah, but hi, Dr. Paul.
I'm the fan girl moment right here.
I've been a news fan for a long time.
If you don't mind maybe a slight off, I mean, still on point about the spread of liberty and everything.
I was curious, because you're always talking about alternative ways of spreading liberty and providing examples of that and everything.
It's an odd question, I know, but I was curious to your thoughts about the concept of a city-state in hearing.
Throughout time, the Greeks, the Romans and Carthaginians, the great merchants, city-states of Carthage, and what have you, the German city-states, the Italians were all great hotbeds of liberty and different ideas to spread.
And I'm curious of whether or not this current climate, there might be any kind of a thought for starting something just small to showcase.
And I don't even know where something like that would begin.
But there is at least a basis within our own country.
Like, for example, the Amish are exemptive many taxes and the draft, what have you, and whether something of a simulate, there's a strain there that could be pursued in some future.
I want to be able to address that.
Well, I think in a way that's what we're doing, you know, in a different level, which is, I mean, I think that for me personally, the road to a more libertarian society is embracing the eighth old concept of subsidiarity.
That's right, Jeff.
All power down to the lowest level possible.
And when it moves in that direction, then we are moving more towards self-government.
So I think it is a process that might be some sort of an end goal.
There may be city-states.
I think Jeff Dice has talked about this too.
There may be the equivalent of city-states based on people's shared value systems.
You may not want to live in a community of people that are using narcotics, for example.
But if you move towards subsidiarity with autonomy in this way, you can follow the natural progression if you wish to live closer to people who share your values.
And I think this is a natural thing to happen.
I think when the collapse comes, and it will, if an economic collapse, we're going to be rejected as a world empire, and we will not have the benefit of the reserve currency of the world.
And under those conditions, it's going to be very natural to do exactly what you're talking about.
And that's why in this mess that we're facing, the main goal is to introduce the notion to more Americans that we really don't need the federal government telling us what to do every single minute, and the people would take care of themselves.
I mean, liberty solves so many problems.
So I think it'll be a natural thing, and I think that's what's going to happen, and you could come out of the chaos as long as we do our work.
Dr. Paul, it's a privilege to be here.
My name is Mark Pippets.
I'm the libertarian candidate for governor of Texas.
A few days ago, a couple of days ago, the Mexican Supreme Court, for the fifth consecutive time, ruled that it is unconstitutional for a government to prohibit its citizens from growing and consuming recreational marijuana.
And the Mexican Constitution is similar to the United States in many ways.
I know I'm a Mexican attorney, but my question, and their argument was that the government was hindering its citizens' pursuit of happiness.
That's what their argument was.
Do you think that that type of argument could go over here in the U.S.?
Okay, so let me make sure I understand that.
The court ruled against the use of marijuana or for no.
The court ruled that a government has no right to prohibit its citizens from growing and consuming recreational marijuana.
The odd thing is, it doesn't seem like anybody's listening to it.
Government Not Our Protector00:03:20
Well, the drug war continues.
We just need to eliminate the drug war.
But pursuit of happiness should just be the absence of government.
Yes, you should be able to raise the money.
The reason we have these kind of rules and laws is the assumption, the philosophic assumption, that who's supposed to protect us against danger or against ourselves.
And it's not the government.
The government is not there to protect us against any danger whatsoever or make sure you have something, somebody will take care of you from cradle to grave.
No, the responsibility on us as individuals.
And that solves the whole problem.
It's not so much that we want to legalize marijuana or drugs and things.
We want to legalize freedom and get people assume the responsibility for ourselves.
And that is, and I mentioned this last night to a smaller group, is this is where I got the loudest applause from some of the college kids.
Yes, you have that.
And let me tell you one thing.
If you have that freedom, you are utterly responsible for everything that you do.
And you can't go to the government to get bailed out.
You can't go to your neighbor because you've used your liberty in a way that didn't make a lot of sense.
Thank you.
Just one last question.
We're getting short on time.
My name is Susie.
I'm from Houston over here.
Thank you for your time.
I apologize, this may be a more in-depth question than what you wanted, but to me that we have a change in the cultural personality of who becomes our president every four to eight years.
We've all seen, though, I would say most recently, that it's really the military-industrial complex and the neocons who are running our foreign policy.
And I'm just curious, what can we do to change that?
How can that be altered in some manner?
Because it really doesn't matter who the puppet is in the front, it seems.
It's the people behind the scenes running that particular part of our government.
We just did a show the other day about Drain the Swamp.
President Trump has increased the intelligence budget the highest to its absolute highest level and the biggest increase in 10 years.
If there is a thing called the deep state, I'm pretty sure it resides within the intelligence community.
You know, I don't see it as a, you know, there may be a group of people and they talk and they have this, but I always look at this problem in a philosophic way.
You have to combat bad ideas with good ideas and overwhelm them with them.
I can't advocate how we're going to take over the banking system and get rid of the central bankers.
I don't advise getting guns and going to the Federal Reserve.
But I do advise studying and preparing for alternative currencies and how you get out of it.
And I think the battle is ideological and you combat the authoritarians and whether they do it in the open or secret with better ideas.
But I think we're going to close.
I want to thank our live audience as well as our viewing audience very much for tuning in to this Ron Paul Liberty report.