All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
37:06
Lying Adam Schiff Censured By House...Is It Enough?

US Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) abused his position as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to push false statements that former President Trump had colluded with the Russians. "I've seen the evidence but I can't show it to you," was Schiff's repeated response. There was no evidence. So what should his punishment be? Also today - Ukraine "counter-offensive" flops...why?

|

Time Text
Evidence Overwhelms Durham 00:12:55
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning into the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
I'm doing fine.
And, you know, something in the news that got a lot of political attention.
Lots of news.
They censored somebody.
They haven't done that very often.
I think I witnessed, I was not a participant, but there were a couple times when I was in Congress they did.
And the main way that is held, they get the information out and say, oh, you broke the rules.
And then when the processes follow through, there's a little bit of humiliation.
Oh, you have to face the other members and charges have to be read.
But no money.
You know, they tried to get a censorship against him and fine him.
And they couldn't pass that, which we weren't in favor of.
We didn't know where that taxing authority came from.
But anyway, I think there's a lot of good stuff in the Durham report.
There's some Republicans that say, not tough enough, not tough enough, and they're probably right.
There's always going to be things left open.
But because they might have excluded it accidentally or ineptly or on purpose, there's still a lot of stuff in here because I suspect without that report, the Republicans wouldn't have been feeling comfortable enough to censor Schift on.
And that's where it was.
Yeah, it was a really bizarre scene yesterday on the House floor.
And I think, I don't know, was Traffic Kent censored before he was kicked out?
I don't remember, but I know he was a little bit more.
Yeah, he was.
I believe so.
Okay, yeah.
So I've seen, I guess, as well, working for you on the floor.
I haven't seen anything like this before.
Now, this is the moment when Speaker McCarthy was trying to read the bill out on the floor.
If we can play that first clip, it's quite interesting, actually.
Get that first one up and running.
This is the moment he was trying to read it.
Looks like a, wow, it looks crazy down there.
I've never seen it like that.
Free candy?
I don't know.
Let's hear it.
We can probably cut it out at that point.
Yeah.
What do you think about that?
Do you think the media will recognize that the Republicans are sort of pikers?
You know, they didn't do a very good insurrection.
That's why it's faded.
But this looks like they really understand what insurrection is because one of the definitions of insurrection is that they're able to handicap the legislative branch, the process of the government.
And they couldn't do anything without it, without that riot going on.
But I don't know whether the media is going to be after them or not or do anything.
But I think there's a growing number, even though it's not big enough, a number of people that there's two systems of justice in this country.
I think if there's nothing else, there's a lot of people that preface their comments, and I'm almost in that point, of this is what I didn't like about Trump.
This is what I didn't like about that.
But they're over the top.
You know, and there is a limit.
And that's why I think everybody is talking about who's going to be the substitute for Biden, who's going to be the substitute for Trump.
It could be very interesting.
Yeah.
Well, let's put on that first clip because this is basically what we're talking about.
People that have not been paying attention, which you can be forgiven for not.
But House votes to censure Adam's shift.
It has not been a good day for the Congressman from California.
First, he was owned by John Durham while the Democrats attempted a character assassination, and now the House of Representatives voted to censure Representative Adam Schiff on June 21th.
Now, we're not really talking a lot about the Durham, Durham's trip before Congress, but there was a lot going on with that as well.
But he was voted on the censure, and a lot of people on this vote said, who are those six Republicans who voted president?
we need to get them.
Well, thankfully, Anna Paulina Luna, who is a representative who brought forth the legislation, she explained why those voted present, if we can put that next one up.
And I think it's important to see this.
For those wondering who voted president, members who sit on ethics traditionally vote present, as they do not weigh in on investigations prior to them coming through the committee.
This is typically the case on both sides.
Also, although Representative Thomas Massey and I disagreed on my first resolution, he did assist me in helping with some of the votes for the new resolution that passed.
Thank you to all who worked together for accountability.
And the real reason I bring this up, we kind of took Massey's side on this, and you certainly did when you said, hey, where's this $13 or $16 million coming from?
That was his big objection to it.
And he was piled on by a lot of Republicans, by a lot of people.
Oh my gosh, Massey sold out.
He's a terrible guy.
No, he stood up for the Constitution.
Congress doesn't have this authority.
I think that Adam Schiff is as much of a creep as everyone else does, but I'm not going to break the rules to punish him.
He stood, I mean, I'm just going to say he stood by his values, and he won in the end, and he won the right way.
Yeah, and he has a reputation that really helps him out on those issues like that.
Because if it was just immediate and it was a one-time deal, you know, you can get hit pretty hard.
I can remember one time, I think it was a vote on Cardinal O'Connor.
Oh, yeah.
And I voted no, and I was the only one.
And before I got back to the office, there were a few of you standing there.
Oh, you better watch.
Boy, they call on from all over.
But somebody came up from the staff and said, oh, yeah, it's the New York Times.
They really want to talk to you about that.
And the staff talked to him before I didn't talk to him.
And the staff kept talking to him.
They said, oh, he votes against all those gold medals.
And, you know, the air went out.
Nothing to it.
They have to find that gut-wrenching controversy.
So it wasn't controversial, which is making the point that if you have something, you tell your people what you believe in.
I sort of had the advantage of pointing out the economics of government insurance on floods.
Because eventually a lot of people got a lot of complicated messes with FEMA.
And that went on, but they knew and understood why I voted against it.
So people say, you can't stay in it.
You have so much coastline.
How can you stay in Congress?
Well, fortunately, I think, you know, whether it's Massey or other ones, because there are others, that it becomes a benefit to you rather than a hindrance.
Yeah, absolutely.
And on principle.
But, you know, I mean, really, I think Adam Schiff is the poster child for all that was wrong with the Russia gate because he, through the end, and I think what was most despicable about what he did, we've talked about it on the show, is that he hid behind his position as House Intelligence Committee Chair and said, I've seen concrete evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians.
I can't tell you, of course, because it's classified, but it's concrete evidence.
And I can imagine a lot of people, and we know there are good people that do work in the intelligence community.
Of course, there are a lot of bad things that go on, but there are decent, honest people.
And I can imagine those people being furious because what he did was he weaponized the intelligence process, the process of analyzing intelligence information and coming to conclusions.
He weaponized that for political reasons and used it against Trump and the Republicans.
That's absolutely despicable, but it also undermines the credibility of the intelligence community itself.
Most of the people who have been thinking this through already realized that.
They knew it, but they didn't have the absolute evidence of it.
But what's coming out?
You can't hide the truth forever.
And in spite of the shortcomings, maybe, of Durham's report, there's this good stuff.
And I want to read this one.
This was on Zero Hedge.
Breaking.
John Durham reveals FBI kept intel on Hillary Clinton's plan to link Trump with Russia collusion in 2016.
Started way back then.
From the agents working on the case.
And this is testimony now.
But that will not discourage them because not only on principle do they justify lying, they're obsessed with it.
Because that's their challenge.
Sometimes it's a competition in political strategy or ideology on economic policy or something.
But no, this is who can fib, who can distort, and who can have a breakdown of law and order and have an insurrection and not get blamed for committing treason.
So the Democrats have been up on that, but I think the information is going to continue to come out and hopefully truth will be achieved, which I don't believe can happen, but I want people to move in that direction.
I want it to be the goal of people.
Why shouldn't that be a worthy goal?
And if the worthy goal is liberty and they understand what it is, I mean, the world would be a much better place.
Yeah, and the other hearing, because you referenced it, there was Durham, John Durham before the House, and he was brutally attacked by Democrats.
They said you should be put on the pyre.
I mean, basically what?
You want to kill him or something?
It was unbelievable, but he held his own.
And the weird thing is, as we know, he's always been viewed as a totally nonpartisan guy.
He went after gangsters and stuff like this.
That was his whole career as a prosecutor.
He was never a MAGA guy.
He probably hates Trump, really.
So he's always had this kind of pristine reputation.
But now when he rules against this mob, they attack him and say basically he should be killed.
You know, it's really crazy.
But here's, if you put this next clip on, this is something that he said about the FBI.
This is part of his conclusion as he was before the House.
He said, the FBI was too willing to accept and use politically funded and uncorroborated opposition research such as the Steele dossier.
The FBI relied on the dossier and FISA applications, knowing there was likely material originating from the political campaign or political opponent.
So they knew it was political dirt on the opponent and they used it anyway.
So I think that says a lot.
And I was going to play one more clip if you don't mind.
Now this is partisan.
This was put together by the GOP.
So we'll accept that it has a partisan origin.
But I was really kind of looking for a mashup of all the junk that Schiff had said.
So the first part, you're going to, well, anyway, let's just watch it.
It's about a little over a minute.
It's a little longer than usual, but I think it's worth a look at this clip, just to remind us of what Schiff was like.
But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case.
Actually, no, Chuck.
I can tell you that the case is more than that.
And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.
Some real evidence is coming forward that just can't be ignored.
Russian collusion.
Sort of collusion.
Possible collusion.
Possible collusion.
Possibly.
Prove collusion.
Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion?
Yes, we have.
Cold-hard evidence.
The evidence is quite overwhelming on this.
Bombshell reports.
Bombshell.
Bombshell report.
The BuzzFeed bombshell.
Was there collusion?
Absolutely.
What do the Russians have?
Is something that's going to come out about Russia?
Bombshell.
Steel dossier.
Steel dossier.
There's steel dossiers.
What's in the steel dossier?
Kevla's size and scroll probably beyond Watergate.
Worse than Watergate.
The Watergate moment.
Desecration of our democracy.
Nazi since water.
Bombshell outside.
Now they frame this as the bad Democrats and the good Republicans.
We wouldn't do it that way.
But just looking at the tail of the tape, I would say you also have to say the mainstream media is repulsive.
Field of Greens Promo 00:03:15
Boy, it is amazing that people will still take an absolutely opposite viewpoint after listening to that.
They should at least say, well, maybe there is something to this.
And just think, it's been going on since 2016.
And it's consistent, persistent, the same story over and over again.
But the sad part is, although the Republicans and the people who object to the media are making progress, I'm afraid the numbers still aren't there.
I think we see a little bit of shift in the numbers of the charges made by the Democrats not being true.
But there's still, if you go out in the men in the street and start doing a lot of interviews, they either won't know what's going on and say, oh, it's all Trump's fault.
I remember seeing he was in collusion with the Russians.
We couldn't possibly vote for him.
So it takes a lot of effort to build the lies, even though they had a bunch of people, but it's orchestrated.
It isn't just one person on the left side.
It's very consistent.
Sometimes they use the same words.
And they put it out there.
That's a real shame, but it takes a long time to convert one mind at a time.
And that's what it takes.
I think the momentum is building for people looking at that whole mess more sensibly.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, if we're ready to move on, I'm going to say before we go on, I did tell you all when we started talking about Field of Greens that I was going to try Field of Greens.
I've got my Field of Greens here.
I've been taking some.
This is a delicious concoction.
It's a berry concoction.
I just have it simply in some organic grass-fed milk.
And I was shocked when I took my first taste at how delicious it is.
But beyond delicious, it's nutritious.
It's not a supplement.
It's real fruit and vegetables.
Now, the CDC says we should eat six cups of fruit and vegetables a day.
I like fruit and vegetables a lot, but I have to say I don't eat six cups of it.
That's why Field of Greens has put together specifically targeted organic, beyond organic vegetables grown and raised in PACT here in the U.S.
They target things like heart, health, liver, kidney health, immune system, and metabolism.
I'm taking it to get back in shape, to get back healthy, and it works fast.
I already feel better.
But the best thing about Field of Greens is that they give you a better health promise.
They say, take Field of Greens, and at your next doctor visit, if your doctor doesn't say something like, whatever you're doing, it's working.
Keep it up.
Then return your Field of Greens to the company for a refund.
To help you get started, we can get you 15% off your first order.
Plus, get another 10% off when you subscribe for recurring orders.
Fieldofgreens.com.
Use promo code RON for Field of Greens.
I will put the promo code and the website in the description below so you can try it, see what you think.
I think it's delicious.
CNN's Moral High Ground 00:10:19
Well, let's move on to Ukraine, Dr. Paul, because Ukrainians are not on the outskirts of Moscow yet.
Let's put that next clip.
This is from CNN.
So last thing they want to do is to tell the truth, but unfortunately, when even CNN tells the truth, you know that it's pretty bad.
If you can put it up that next, actually skip that clip, that Adam Schiff clip.
I'm not going to read that one.
If we do the next one after that, where you see, there you go, thanks.
So CNN politics today said, early stages of Ukrainian counteroffensive, quote, not meeting expectations.
Western officials tell CNN.
Well, not going so hot.
You know, I'm still mixed up on this.
You know, here, he's coming over here, and you hear a lot of stories winning.
He's admitting that they have a little bit of a problem.
But it's essentially over.
And we need to have some help rebuilding our country.
So he's out for more money and rebuilding at the country.
At the same time, he says the counteroffensive isn't working too well.
So that's the whole thing.
I remember a long time ago, there was an appropriation bill on the floor.
I think it had dealt with Lebanon.
And we were voting in the appropriation for which I voted against.
And I said, no, we're going to go over there and we're going to send some weapons over there and we're going to join the fight.
Before you know it, we'll have to do it.
And I thought maybe a year or so, the truth would come out and there was more trouble with the weapons we sent.
No, it was a month or two later.
They had another appropriation up to rebuild the bridges that we were knocking down.
Somebody said, what about our bridges at home?
Are we ever going to fix them?
Yeah.
What about that one up on the 95?
It's been down forever.
They're not going to rebuild that.
But yeah, that's exactly it.
And this is from the article, Dr. Paul.
And I think this says a lot.
And I think it vindicates a lot of the people that we know as good friends, Scott Ritter, Colonel McGregor, and others, who were saying this from the beginning and were ridiculed and harassed and being accused of all sorts of things.
You're just being in the pay of Putin.
Well, it turns out, as usual, they're right.
If we can put this next one on, this is from the CNN article.
Remember, this is CNN talking.
And when CNN has to admit even this, then you know something's going on.
Now, I highlighted one part of this.
Now, this is hard to read, and I apologize.
But here's how the CNN article starts, Dr. Paul.
In its early phases, Ukraine's counteroffensive is having less success.
And, and here's the part I underlined, Russian forces are showing more competence than Western assessments expected, said two Western officials.
The counteroffensive is, quote, not meeting expectations on any front.
It's failing across the entire front, in other words.
But the part that's important, I think, Dr. Paul, and it goes to the entire way that foreign affairs analysis works in Washington, Russian forces are showing more competence than Western assessments expected.
These assessments are based on politics rather than analysis.
How many times do we see Russia's running out of missiles?
They'll be out of missiles next week.
It happened for the entire year.
It doesn't matter if you like Russia or hate Russia.
But when you have the whole military establishment together with the media saying Russians lose, Russia's losing, Russia's going to lose, Russia's weak, it's disorganizing.
You can't organize your foreign policy based on this kind of circle of lies.
But the propaganda people have done a pretty good job on putting those lies out, and most Americans still believe it.
And what they were repeating all the time, the war is the attack Russia did, you know, not too many months ago, invaded Ukraine.
So it was always Russia against Ukraine.
At the same time, they say, well, you know, if Russia, maybe Russia is in a more defensive mood than an offensive mood, because they have the power and they can do a lot more.
But they don't ever say, well, how did the war really start?
What if the war, since the beginning, for let's say even almost nine years now, started by, you know, us throwing out one government and again, putting another government in and dealing with a coup back in 2014.
And it's all been based on a lie.
And if from that point on, if there would have been more of the people you mentioned and the other few journalists that they have, to put this into perspective, without getting in a position to say, oh, the Russians or either the Chinese, they're angels and that's why we do that.
We look at it more objectively of what we have done.
And that to me is a big deal because this, just like you put up those clips about the people who were lying about the insurrection and all that, they lied through their teeth.
But here, this whole war, in many ways, is built by a lie, especially what about the documentation of the diplomacy since World War II and especially since 1989 and the comments and the promises that we have made.
And that's important, but you just don't see that on the mainstream media, not at all.
And yet, there's still a lot of people slowly but surely are being exposed to the truth and it's starting to make sense for them.
But that's the problem, though.
It's still that we're behind because the propaganda machine from the far left and the media is pretty powerful.
You know, there are real consequences to believing your own propaganda because it leads you to do things that you otherwise would not do if you took a rational approach to things.
And if you look at one of those, some of the propaganda is we have the strongest, best equipped military in the world.
Well, you're sending your best things in there right now.
NATO is sending its best military equipment into Ukraine right now, and it's getting absolutely slaughtered.
Those Leopard II tanks, the Bradleys, they're burning like marshmallows over an open fire.
So you have a danger of being too reckless when you believe your own propaganda.
And I think that's what we're seeing here.
It doesn't matter if you like what's happening or you hate what's happening.
There's a danger in doing that.
But the other thing from the CNN article that I wanted to point out, Dr. Paul, if you could put that next clip, because you said this early on and you were criticized for being, oh, you know, oh, he just is a, go back one if you don't mind.
He just is taking Putin's side.
Now this is Mark Milley.
He said, this is a very difficult fight.
It's a very violent fight.
It will take a considerable amount of time and a high cost.
And Secretary of Defense Austin said, the Ukrainians have the ability to recover equipment that's been damaged, repair, da-da-da-da-da.
There will continue to be battle damage, but they have a lot of combat capability.
Now, the point here is both of them are saying there is going to be enormous losses here, but they've got to keep going.
And you wrote very early on, they're trying to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian.
And here they are literally admitting that that's the goal.
You know, the opposition that I claim has most of the control of mainstream media and influence a lot of people in the country.
And they do this with a tone of moral high ground.
Even when they get our people to do it, we're sending these kids over to fight for our freedoms, for our Constitution, our liberties, and on and on in our way of life.
And it's a fib lying, you know, to deceive the people to get energized over it.
But there's another thing that we never take into consideration and we don't understand how powerful it is.
And that, who's fighting for the homeland?
You know, when you go into a country, especially Vietnam, you know, just think of those 20 years or so that France and the United States was in there.
But how could those Vietnamese, you know, who believed in communism and all this other thing, you know, survive?
But it was their homeland.
And that's why people will fight for their homeland without getting too bogged down in who's going to control the welfare state, you know, that sort of thing.
So that's one thing that I think we blind ourselves to.
It's always this heroic stuff.
We've got to go in there and we've got to protect our national interest, which is the national interest is our empire.
And that's what we have to protect.
So that is sad.
So once again, the solution to that is get the truth out and hopefully people will continue to search for it.
Let's hope so.
Well, then someone else who got it right from the beginning, let's give credit where credit's due, is a certain senator from Kentucky that we both know.
And I just wanted to put this up because I thought it's kind of a neat tweet.
Actually, let's skip this one.
We already basically covered it.
Here's a neat tweet from Rand Paul that came out yesterday.
Senator Paul said, the good news is that Ukraine caught their highest judge hiding some of his more than $2 million in bribes in pickle jars.
The bad news is that Ukraine, consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, still has high-ranking officials robbing it blind.
He continues, this might be a salient point when Ukraine returns to Congress to beg for more U.S. taxpayer funds.
Why won't Democrats accept my call for a special inspector general to oversee the billions of dollars we send to Ukraine?
To which Elon Musk responded, some accounting of how American taxpayer money is being spent sure sounds like a reasonable request here here.
So that was kind of a neat little exchange, and we said it from the beginning.
We need to hear more of those kind of tweets.
Right to the point.
That's good.
And of course, Rand's been on that for a long time.
Yeah, he's the first one.
Hey, I know I can't stop the money going, but can we at least have someone look over it?
Private Property vs. Government Control 00:10:20
No, shut up.
Prepare for what's coming, but they'll wait 10 years when we are bankrupt.
And they say, you know, we ought to check that.
But then they ask, we need to audit.
They get their audit of anything the Pentagon's been doing.
No easier thing.
I get the auditing of the Federal Reserve.
The big stuff is sort of secret behind the scenes.
Even secret from the government, the so-called official government.
I don't think if you sat down and had a conversation with our president and he says, today I'm going to level with you.
Ask me anything you want.
And this is a daydream.
He says, I will do my best to answer everything you want.
So you start asking questions.
I don't think he knows the answer.
But I'm not picking on him because he has a little defect.
I'm picking on the system.
So even the people that are there, because I think that was part of the problem that Trump had.
He didn't realize that he was not going to be a president with the authority of a president.
He had to deal with every single person more now than ever before.
Look how they gang up on him.
They're a bunch of bullies.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Well, you know, and they always do at the end.
Well, nobody saw that coming.
Well, a few people did, but you don't get credit for being right.
Well, the last one is something I know you've talked about a lot, and this is something that really came up, and it's pretty disappointing.
Let's put this next one on.
This next is our last little thing here.
Wearing a shirt saying there are only two gender is not protected speech rules Obama appointed judge.
We have the picture up here.
A young kid went to school wearing a shirt saying there are only two genders.
He got busted.
They forced him to take off the shirt.
And the court ruled that, no, you're not allowed to say that.
You're not allowed to say things like that.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Well, it does have something to do about free expression and hypocrisy of it all.
The people who want to silence messages like this are the enemies of free speech.
But I think it's a difficult situation in a country that is owned or controlled by the government.
That's why we have trouble regulating social media because that's supposed to be private, but they're partners with the government.
So I see that as the big problem because wearing a shirt and saying certain things and reading what books, it only happens in a government-run school because we still have enough respect for private property.
If somebody joins a school board and wants to get rid of all the communist propaganda, he's a book burner.
He's a book burner.
Well, you know, but nobody's marching into somebody's house and trying to say, you've got to get rid of that book or that book, which could come.
That's why you don't want to endorse this idea that government should pick and choose.
But that is where the real problem is.
I think that private property can solve it.
You know, whether it's your church, a private meeting, your homes, you can talk and say and propagandize all you want.
There are limits unless it's a true plan to commit violence and the obvious thing.
That's not what's going on.
This is just controlling the propaganda and controlling the message.
But the big thing is this whole transgenderism, how they control that.
And in a way, that's what this is all about, the transgenderism.
And that people have to realize that, let's say, one, two, three percent, nobody probably knows, represents the ideas of transgenderism.
So if they want something, but they have to use the government to force it, force their ideas and their principles on others, you know, the violation is there.
But it's on the people who are forced to subsidize it and be controlled by people like this, and the people who want to express themselves and be left alone.
And they did this.
They described this as they just wanted the transgender people just want to be left alone.
No, it's the people who have a different viewpoint would like to be just left alone and have a discussion.
So it's part of this whole thing that government involvement, and they're going to dictate right and wrong.
And don't worry about it.
Truth will never break out because people no longer believe there is such a thing, which I challenge and say the more information that we get on this, understanding that freedom of speech would be the regulator you need in private property.
They couldn't walk into our churches and take over, although they locked us out of our churches for a while.
That means they're marching in that way.
And a lot of people state it more bluntly.
They say, we think systematically is under attack.
So it remains to be seen.
The weird thing about this whole thing was the rationale of this is Obama appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.
And it's kind of a twisted logic, I think, that she ruled that the school permissibly concluded that the shirt invades the rights of others.
So by wearing this shirt, he actually invaded the rights of others.
She said schools can bar speech that is, quote, in collision with the rights of others to be secure and left alone.
To me, that says if anyone wears anything that you find offensive, they should be forced to take it off or to replace it.
Well, if that's the standard, it's going to be quite interesting to see what about the rest of us that are offended by it, because I'm offended by a lot of stuff.
And certainly there are reasonable things that you can't wear to shirt to school, but this is a strange rationale.
You're not allowed to wear anything that may offend someone else.
You know, if they're able to do this, if special groups, and I don't believe in group rights, I believe in individual rights, but if groups get together and it's transgenderism that you're promoting and you demand and emphasize and write all the rules and punish the people who challenge it in a nonviolent manner, it can only be done at the sacrifice of liberty.
You know, somebody else's liberty is going to be punished.
So here you have a small, small minority able to express themselves and the rest of the people lose their liberty.
And I think that's what that person was alluding to.
Absolutely.
Well, I'm just going to close out by reminding our audience, September 2nd, Washington, D.C., you're going to get those tickets on sale today.
Which Way America is going to be our theme this year?
There's a lot to talk about.
It's our flagship conference.
Mark it on your calendar, make your travel plans.
I'll get those tickets out available to you right away.
But September 2nd, we're going to have a great group there.
I already talked about, I haven't talked to you about this, Dr. Paul, yet.
I already talked to our good friend Colonel Doug McGregor.
He's going to be there with us.
So we're really looking forward to hearing from him again.
A lot of other great guests and great speakers.
Mark your calendars.
Come see the colonel.
Come see the doctor.
Come see the loudmouth.
And we'll have a great time.
So very good.
And I'm going to close with a follow-up more on this school issue.
Because if, you know, what percent of the people go to government schools?
A lot.
This say 80% or more, whatever.
That's where most people get their education and so-called education.
So, but should there, what you're saying is, well, you should have no rules at all whatsoever.
No, I don't think you could do that.
I think in a civilized society, you would have to have, and there would be a basic understanding that the system isn't proper.
It isn't part of our Constitution.
But if it exists, who will set up the standards of that item, the standard of the schools?
Because you probably wouldn't want people to be able to come to school with no clothes on and all this other thing.
You could think, or, you know, total vulgarity.
There should be some rules and guidance on what the decorum would be like.
And the only way I can see working out without saying, no, the only thing libertarians can do is just get rid of all the government schools.
Well, they'll probably just self-destruct and all that.
But I wouldn't say, okay, next week all government schools are closed.
So what they do is they'll ask to the only way you can get a group to get the rules out and figure on it, I would say the school board.
If the school board wants to set a standard of rules of what's happened, they might do well, they might do badly, they might get into trouble, but it should be controlled by the school board and the school board as local as possible, not going to the state level, the federal level, the international level for all the guidance.
I think that's very, very bad.
So if they set the standards and they do something that doesn't satisfy the community, throw them out of office.
But that's imperfect, but that's probably the only thing available right now.
And a little bit of that is happening because the rules occurred under the COVID lockdown, became so atrocious that the people finally did exactly that, threw some out and said, no, we're going to take care of our kids and watch what you're teaching them.
So I think there is a place where you can argue that case for if we're going to get rid of something, you have to know about maybe a transition period or how to do it.
If there's total chaos, things will be rebuilt, but that is not what we're looking for.
We'd like to prevent it.
So promoting the cause of liberty is a real challenge.
I think it's very necessary because in Liberty can be found the answers to the problem of seeking peace and prosperity.
Export Selection