It has been 22 years since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. The attacks launched the "global war on terror" that the neocons had been itching for. Media propaganda solidified the lie that "they attacked us because we are rich and free." And to this day there has been no national discussion as to why 9/11 happened and how we can prevent the next one. Also today: blockbuster new JFK assassination revelations and Californians are getting sticker shock on move toward reparations.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, welcome back.
It's good to be back, Dr. Paul.
Took a little trip.
Took a little trip.
Where were you?
Oh, I know.
I was there.
There was a little conference we had up in Alexandria.
It was close to Washington, but I don't know if anybody went over to Washington.
I don't know.
But anyway, I thought it was great.
What do you?
You had to do all the work.
Except there were a couple speakers there that did a good job.
We even got some coverage out of it.
I thought it worked out real well.
Yeah, it was.
In fact, put on that first clip, actually, because here's just a clip of the room, because people are wondering, oh, the conference, five, six people.
No, it was a packed room full of people.
Hundreds of people were there.
We all had a great time.
We had great speakers.
We had Colonel Doug McGregor there.
We had Jonathan Turley.
We touched on really all the big topics of the day, the indictments.
We talked about Ukraine, foreign policy.
We talked about the economy.
So it was, we really touched all the bases, which way America.
So I was really pleased with the conferences.
The other thing that I was really happy to hear is when we asked, how many people is this your first conference?
And I would say at least a third of them raised their hands and said, this is their first RPI conference that they've been to.
So that means we're reaching new people, and that's our goal.
We love having the same people come back every year.
We encourage them to come back every year.
But we're also really enthused when there are new people coming.
Maybe they watch the show, they see something.
So for me, that was one of the most encouraging things.
I just want to say one other thing, though, Dr. Paul, which is the day before the conference, we have our Ron Paul Scholars Seminar.
And that's an event that keeps growing every year.
This year we had our largest group of scholars ever.
These are upper division undergrads and grad students.
We talked about it a little bit on the show, but we had four great talks.
We had great discussions.
Our friend Jeff Deist was there.
We had just some terrific discussions, some of them academic, some of them a little less.
Jeff Deist gave a great talk about how to make the most of your 20s, how to live your life to the fullest.
And that went over really well.
So the scholars seminar was also a huge thing, and we had our scholars there at the conference the next day.
So all in all, it's about six months of work for the Ron Paul Institute.
When it's over, there's a little bit of, there's a lot of relief, honestly, but there's also kind of a bit of wistfulness, like, gosh, I'm going to do that again.
It was fun.
So it was a great time.
Yeah, that was wonderful.
I thought it worked out real well.
And I know you put a couple hours' work into this.
So we'll think of something else to do and put you back to work here while we get to play games here, look for supporters.
That's right.
We're open-minded and want to hear our opinion about searching for the truth.
Absolutely.
So today is an appropriate day to search for the truth.
I think it's called 9-11.
Boy, what a day that was.
You remember where you were on 9-11?
Reading the newspaper less than a half a mile from the Pentagon.
I felt the crash into the building.
Oh, boy.
Yeah, it was something else.
So, but 9-11, from the very beginning, there were questions, but not real questions.
9-11 Questions00:10:48
You know, everybody had to come together.
And, you know, and this wasn't a time to be in detail about exactly who was to blame.
But it didn't take long to figure out.
And there still remains a lot of unanswered questions.
Of course, we had a commission to study this.
But you know, my opinion in general, a commission coming out of Washington, usually is either to hide the truth or cover it up or change it or get somebody out of trouble.
If somebody went wrong on a strategic problem, they'll hide who was the cause of it.
But this was a big thing.
The one thing I remember within the first week, that we had a major vote, and that was on the Patriot Act.
And that was so disturbing to me, but they were quite frank about it.
There were no hearings.
Oh, well, we've had this prepared.
It's been on this shelf.
So they've reviewed it.
Everybody knew it.
Everybody knew what was in it except the people who were voting on it.
But there was no way people were going to oppose it.
I remember sitting beside one member of Congress who sympathetic to our views, and he was voting for it, and I was voting against it.
I said, why are you voting for this?
He says, oh, I know you're right.
It's a bad bill and all this stuff.
He said, but how am I going to go home and explain it to my constituents to be against the Patriot Act under these conditions?
Of course, my suggestion was rather frank.
Well, that's your job.
Yeah, exactly.
That would be a strange thing.
But I think it tells us a lot because it's ongoing.
I think the big question of Building 7 is a big deal.
Nobody's ever satisfied the explanation of how that building went down.
So there's a lot of unanswered questions.
But something came up one time in a debate that I was in.
And the question was really around what was the incentive for people doing it.
But the question really wasn't asked.
And that's one of my, because I believe the incentive was a little bit different than the conventional wisdom.
So the incentive, they said, no, it was just hatred and jihadism and this sort of thing.
But I think what they do is, and one thing that I think I recognized since that time, usually if there's a murder or mass killing or anything else, people want to know who did it, but don't they all, the police always ask, if they find somebody, they say, what's his motive?
I mean, if there's no motive and he's out of the country, you know, they sort of drop the case.
What's the motive?
But I don't think they've ever asked that question.
There's a few of us that asked the question and they didn't even want to hear the question.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
You know, on the Patriot Act, it reminds you of that great saying, I think it was from the Clinton administration, never let a good crisis go to waste.
They had it right there on the shelf, just like they had Iraq War II, right there on the shelf.
They dusted it off and put it into motion.
The commissions were there really to reinforce the mainstream narratives.
And that's what they did for the most part.
I do remember one of the few times when we were working on the Patriot Act, one of the few times the staff really had to huddle and put our heads together because we knew it was going to be a tough vote.
We knew it was the right vote.
But we had to figure out how to explain it to conservatives in the Gulf Coast of Texas, how their representative voted against the Patriot Act just days after we were attacked.
That was a baptism of fire because I had just gone to work for you and I thought, this job is going to be hard.
This isn't easy.
If my boss loses, I'm out of work.
So that was really, really, really a tough time.
But I think all of us together thinking about it, we came up with some great creative ideas.
The market reprisal, remember, got a lot of attention from you, and there were just a lot of different things.
Well, I guess you can't predict what would happen because people didn't expect to hear an answer during the debate, and it wasn't well received, and people had an attitude: this was the end, you'll never be on this stage again.
It went on and on.
And, you know, the whole issue of the Patriot Act and 9-11 and taking a position and looking for a real cause, instead of it being a disaster, it was sort of a point that made it different after that, that somebody was willing to speak the truth, even though it didn't mean that I knew everything because I certainly didn't, but I knew some things should have been asked.
And it turned out to be very, instead of it being very, very negative taking that position, it turned out to be, as far as I'm concerned, positive in people willing to listen to an alternative viewpoint.
Yeah, and that was the beginning of it.
Let's put on that first clip just to remind everyone what happened 22 years ago today.
Some buildings were hit by some planes and they fell down.
Go to the next one.
This is the famous devil image.
I'll just put that because it's interesting.
But you mentioned the Building 7, and that really is a sticking point in a lot of people's minds.
I don't claim to know what happened, even though I'm virtually an eyewitness to some of it.
But put on that one video clip because this I think probably captures how a lot of people feel.
Now, this is just someone that I found on Twitter, but I think he makes a very good point that Building 7, he said, was my red pill.
Let's listen to it, let's just watch this for a second.
Not hit by a plane or anything, just like a controlled demolition.
Very, very strange.
And the engineers and architects, you can get maybe hundreds, if not thousands, to say that didn't come from the bombs or the planes.
Well, you know, I was eating fried chicken in Chattanooga the other day on the way home, and it's a restaurant called Champions, and everyone puts dollar bills up on the wall with little signs on it.
And one person put one up that said, Jet fuel can't melt steel beans.
So people are obviously still thinking about it.
I'm not an expert, but it's interesting that people really do still think about it.
It was almost like a calm demolition.
You'd have to say, looks like a controlled demolition.
And then the question is, once again, let's say yes, it was controlled, but there were some very, very pieces of information and it hurt national security, that sort of thing.
But the officials never really investigated that and had both sides heard.
It was just that it was part of the jihad that was doing this.
So that to me is, it will be around for a while.
And I guess it'll be around for a while until we get people understanding what the real reason was, what was the excuse, and what was the real reason.
But, of course, my point in my efforts on the floor or elsewhere was to talk about incentives and our policies.
Is this just all of a sudden?
Well, George Bush explained it.
Our goodness.
It was our goodness.
And our advancement, our liberties.
And they couldn't stop it.
They didn't like our movies and things like that.
That's why they did that.
Well, I don't know if anybody still believes that or not.
Most people, I think most Americans either forgot it, didn't know about it, or wish they supplied.
They have a campaign to deal with.
We're trying to figure out who's telling a lie in this campaign.
Well, you know, what you did is you blurted out the truth, and it's like everyone in a room.
When someone raises their hand and says the truth, everyone's thinking that, but no one dares to say it.
You said they came over here because we've been over there killing them for years and years and years, and it finally snapped.
And they finally realized that.
And then, remember, Julian said, that's an extraordinary thing to say.
You're blaming America.
And he said, no, I'm not.
I'm blaming our foreign policy.
You know, somebody said to me, they say, you know, Giuliani's in trouble now.
He's, you know, really, it's serious trouble.
But I have no desire whatsoever.
Matter of fact, I think if Giuliani ends up in prison, that is part of the problem.
It's just that the establishment turned against him, you know, that sort of thing.
But no, it's a mess.
One thing leads to another.
But the other thing is, has the foreign policy changed much?
You're an expert on that, so maybe we're cleaning up our act.
And that's it.
22 years later, we launched the global war on terror.
And remember how many trillions of dollars were spent?
How many millions of lives, of innocent lives, were destroyed in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Taliban did not attack us.
Most Americans, I don't think, understand that.
Saddam Hussein did not attack us.
Yet we went in and destroyed both of those countries to no good, to no good end.
When in the reality, as you very, very well pointed out, the reality is that our interventionist foreign policy provoked anger overseas.
And it's the case over and over again, including in Ukraine.
In fact, Jen Stoltenberg himself, the NATO Secretary General, just admitted it inadvertently.
He said, well, you know, Russia attacked Ukraine because we kept moving NATO closer.
He basically made Putin's point.
So the aggressive, hyper-interventionist U.S. foreign policy is what was behind it, doesn't excuse it, as you say.
The point is to find out why they did it, and if we can, maybe do something to prevent another one.
And our solution, your solution has always been just stop the interventionism.
I wonder if the military-industrial complex had anything to do with this.
Yeah, yeah.
You can bet.
Why Interventionism Leads to Conflict00:06:43
You can bet.
Well, you wrote about this today.
I mean, not only did we not learn lessons, but we're making the same mistakes in spades.
You wrote a little bit about what's happening in Niger and the fact that all of a sudden people realize, well, hang on a minute, we've got a thousand troops there.
We got four or five bases there.
It's the center of our drone wars in Africa.
And as you mentioned, Senator Paul wrote to the Secretary of Defense saying, hey, what's going on here?
How do you have the authority to do this?
What are you doing?
And where else are you acting using the U.S. military and trying to use, ironically, the same 9-11 authorization of force to this day, 22 years later, to have bases in Niger.
So not only were lessons not learned, we're making those same mistakes in spades.
You know, there's one area, and they're talking about it today because somebody else adding some information for us over the JFK assassination.
Because they all of a sudden found one person who witnessed close in a car next to Kennedy when he was shot.
And he happens to be 88 years old.
He's getting old.
He's just a kid.
But he decided he's writing his memoirs and writing a book that's coming out.
So he had a book and he wrote about the details of this.
But I've gone through the articles on this and I see no revelation on anything, no enlightenment so that people would have a better understanding of what's going on.
Because first thing is, I have come to the conclusion after reading about seven books on this, people who did authentic investigations said that the CIA was involved.
I believe that it's very plausible that Alan Dulles was the arch enemy of Kennedy.
Kennedy fired him.
And how could they do that to Alan Dulles?
But anyway, Dulles had his day in court because, you know, Kennedy gets killed.
Within a week, they have a committee set up to investigate it, and they put Alan Dulles on the committee to investigate this.
So I think we have a long way on.
But this is where there's some progress made.
Unlike 9-11, I don't think the sentiments are changed.
But here, the sentiments have changed that large majority, some people estimate 70 or 80% of the American people do not believe the official report.
Now, this revelation by the author and the CIA person that just released this was that he was, the most important thing he said was that he no longer believes in the one bullet theory.
Yeah, yeah.
Which means it has to have been a conspiracy.
And the interesting thing is, is he was there right there within yards of the president getting shot, and he was never called before the commission to testify on that.
It's sort of like, you know, they never called, they never called Alan Dulles to see what he knows about maybe Hanky Panking going on in the CIA.
He gets promoted to being really, I doubt if he was the chairman of the commission, but he was running the commission.
I mean, it was all for cover up.
And that to me is so tragic.
I quite often think that 1963, especially this date, was really ushering in the coup takeover of the national security apparatus, which means the CIA, the FBI, and all the control, and also making a fertile field for Soros to undo all the local judges and national judges.
And there's no justice today.
It's so bad.
But it's in a way, it was dated there.
If they can get away with this, they can get away with it.
They think they can get away with a lot.
But the fact that 70 or 80% don't believe them, that eventually the truth will come out, and it is.
And I think that's the one goal that we ought to have is keep letting people know that the truth is there if you keep searching.
Yeah.
Well, let's skip ahead and go to that next one, JFK assassination witness.
And this is just, I picked this up from The Guardian, but the main story was in the New York Times.
Paul Landis was his name, and he was on the car.
He was riding on the running board of the car right behind JFK when the assassination hit.
And I mean, we don't know.
There's a lot of skepticism as to whether his memory, because initially he denied, he didn't say there were more than one bullet.
But now he's recollecting after 60 years.
Well, maybe he heard it differently.
So, you know, we don't know.
But the fact is, it's very interesting.
It reopens the idea.
He says the JFK assassination witness questions whether Schooter acted alone.
He said he heard several shots.
Well, what's interesting about this, Dr. Paul, is the reaction of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And he tweeted this out.
If you can put the next one on, just as this news broke, he said, the magic bullet theory is now dead.
This preposterous construction has served as the mainstay of the theory that a single shooter murdered President Kennedy since the Warren Commission advanced it 60 years ago under the direction of former CIA Director Alan Dulles, whom my uncle fired.
The recent revelations by JFK's Secret Service protector Paul Landis have prompted even the New York Times, among the last lonely defenders of the Warren Report, to finally acknowledge its absurdity.
Very strong reaction from RFK.
You just wonder what official narrative is believable.
I bet you've just about all been canceled.
You know, even the guy they said did it and everybody knows it.
It might have not even been involved.
Yeah, yeah.
Patsy, that's what he said he was, right?
I'm a Patsy.
It's pretty sad.
Yeah.
In the country that was and could be, again, if we followed the principles that were used to establish a country, that it was an example for the world, and it was used, very imperfectly operated.
Taxation And Slavery00:06:28
But it's still today, the odds of us being looked at around the world.
I mean, the world is not in good shape, but they hardly have a good place to look for.
Now, they certainly can't come to us and say, well, we'll explain it to you why you have to become like us.
Matter of fact, that is a dangerous thing that's happening right now because more and more people are not interested in looking at us, and it's involving finances and militarism and our empire.
And that scenario is just starting to unwind.
Yeah, well, let's hope we can be a voice of reason.
Well, let's move on to the last one we're going to talk about.
And this is kind of a man bites dog story because of all places, California, and of all places in California, in Berkeley, they did a poll, Dr. Paul, because the idea is to pay reparations for slavery in California from the California tax base, which strangely enough never had slavery.
But let's put this on.
Now, this is our friends in Hedge wrote it up.
Reparations backlash.
California voters oppose unfair cash payments for slavery, according to Berkeley poll.
And it says, the sprawling social experiment known as California faces an uphill battle on reparations after a new poll from UC Berkeley and the LA Times reveals that voters overwhelmingly oppose the idea of cash payments for black descendants of slaves by a two-to-one margin.
How chintzy they are.
Isn't it interesting that the slavery era was obviously very bad when they enslaved so many.
But here they are trying to rectify a non-problem by enslaving people, and they're enslaving the people.
A lot of them are the descendants of the people they think they're saving.
They had nothing to do with it.
Matter of fact, it is so crazy.
Maybe that's why the California voters are starting to oppose it.
So I keep looking for these positives, and every time we saw some of the very dumb things they did with lockdown, more and more people were peeled away from supporting it.
And I think stuff like this, to me, the principle here is they will have to tax the people of California.
It had nothing to do with slavery.
None of their relatives had anything to do with slavery.
They didn't have slavery in California, and they're going to tax people for it.
Well, taxation really is a form of slavery when you take from one group and give it to special interests, like the military-industrial complex and the corporate organization, because they benefit.
So, it's immoral.
It's bad economic policy.
It's unconstitutional to do this, and then come up with this crazy scheme of saying, oh, and it's not like $50 a month.
It's like millions of dollars they're going to do.
But it is, of course, if he went through and they tried to do it, they say, Well, we can't pay our bills.
It's because Biden won't send us enough money.
It is just a really terrible thing to think that that is a morally permissible thing to do, and the people who suffer from it are being enslaved.
I think that when I use the point of the especially the income tax, is the government owns you.
You become a slave because they have declared that every penny you earn is theirs, the government's, but it will permit you to keep a certain amount under certain conditions and say you will obey.
You have to believe in global warming and a few other things, or you won't get your budget.
Well, here's a poll just to show you: here's what it looks like.
Here's the front cover page: majority of voters believe black Californians continue to be affected by the legacy of slavery, yet cash reparations face headwinds.
And go to the next one, here's the operative quote from the analysis of their findings.
The poll finds that reparations for black Americans faces strong headwinds as most California voters, 59 to 28 percent, oppose the state reparation task force's recommendations to make cash payments to the descendants of enslaved blacks currently living there.
So, massive, massive opposition.
And here's zero hedge.
If you go to the next one, here's their write-up.
And they say, interestingly, just 19% of those opposed cited the cost as an issue.
I found that interesting, Dr. Paul.
He said, the majority simply says it's unfair to today's taxpayers and wrong to single out one group for reparations.
So, they didn't just even say the money's a problem.
They just felt that it was a moral issue.
Why should I have to pay for something that didn't happen in our state?
And we certainly didn't do it.
It really is a moral issue.
It's a civil liberties issue, too, punishing one group for the benefit of another.
So, it should be an easy one.
But people have been taught in this country, you know, for 100 years plus to accept this thing of redistribution of wealth.
1913 was a bad year.
They were doing it through direct taxation of the people, and they introduced that notion.
And it's also been at that particular time they had another invisible tax.
Some of them might argue, no, we're not going to raise taxes for this.
We're just going to print the money, you know, which is a tax, of course.
Who do you tax?
You tax the people that you're trying to help because they're the ones who suffer from the price increases.
So, it's a bad system.
And once we decided to leave that system that emphasized liberty and personal responsibility, there was nothing more than people just looking for the victims and people who could be victimized by the people who get political power.
And that is an argument against political power, and it should be minimized.
That's why we need to get rid of about 80% of what the federal government does.
And I think we would be safer.
Printing Money Is a Tax00:02:47
I think our security would be enhanced.
I don't think sending troops to Nigeria and to Ukraine happens to make us safer.
Certainly, there's billions and billions of dollars we spent in the Middle East were useful to our national security.
They might decide to come over here and bomb us or something.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, we'll keep an eye on it.
The funny part that I found is that black California voters were the most likely to support cash payments than any other demographic, 78% in favor.
Yeah, of course, they want who doesn't want free money?
You could go there and identify as black Americans and get some free money.
I mean, it's funny, but it's not funny.
But maybe they're waking up.
I'm going to close out now, Dr. Paul, and I'm just going to thank our viewers for being patient.
Well, our schedule was a little bit strange.
I've been away for a couple of weeks up in D.C. and then driving back.
We had a great conference.
We really hope that next time any of you who weren't there will be there.
And I was a little worried, Dr. Paul, we had a big long lunch break, and it was awfully tough to corral everyone back after the lunch because, as we said the whole time, and I think people who were first-timers there realized the speakers are fantastic, and I learned so much.
However, talking to people, finding like-minded people, groups were talking amongst themselves, and you could see people exchanging business cards and phone numbers.
That's what it's really all about is creating these connections.
And I was happy about that.
Are you going to be able to make some of these speeches available someday?
Will we be putting them on the website?
Yeah, in fact, we had a great cinematographer who made the films, and he has promised to have them very soon.
He promised a one-week turnover.
So, my guess is we're going to get them very soon.
And the other thing I'm going to do that I didn't do in the past, we kind of staggered them.
That's not fun.
I'm going to put them all together one time on our channel so everyone just kind of can binge-watch the whole thing.
And they're not going to have to click on and get their credit card out and pay to watch it.
No, no, no, I don't, no, we don't do that.
No, we encourage people, we want people to come there, you know, and come to the event.
I think when you're in the education business, a little bit different because I do believe in the market and charging for what you do and that sort of thing.
But and most of those things are legitimate that they charge, but it's just as annoying.
And I know the Mises Institute taught very early on, and Leonard Reed was this way.
Make it available, make it available, and you will get a lot of free help by people circulating it for you.
So I think that is important.
But I want to thank everybody once again for tuning into the Liberty Report.
I think it's been a good session today to review what we've been up to.