All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:42
Who's In Charge of America's Uniparty?

America's major problems have been caused by both parties. Whether it be spending, debt, war, or covid, it has all been a joint effort. Despite all the campaign promises made by politicians of all stripes, the trend has always remained the same - government gets more intrusive and overbearing, while Americans lose their freedom and standard of living. If there really is a uniparty, who's in charge?

|

Time Text
Metals As Protection 00:08:04
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Chris Rossini, our co-host.
Chris, welcome to the program.
It's great to be with you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
You know, today we're going to talk a little bit about political parties and the chaos in Washington, what the founders thought about political parties and this sort of thing, which is pretty important.
But if you just look at the general conditions today, they're not in very good shape.
So there must have been some shortcomings in the Constitution or shortcomings in the people who are supposed to maintain the Constitution and follow the Constitution.
And I think there are certain things that we could talk about in that problem.
I see the whole mess coming from a contest between authoritarianism and those of us who are defending liberty.
And it's that general category that I like to use rather than specific things and chop it up into about 40 different pieces and then put it back together in a political system.
But there is an ongoing struggle, and it's major because I think it's measured so much of the argument that's going on is what the debt is doing.
Are they working things out and paying the bills and protecting liberty?
And I would say it's failing.
It's failing drastically.
So this is the reason why it's interesting to sort of look at what the founders wanted and what to expect.
We have a mess now.
It's economics.
I think there's bankruptcy financially, bankruptcy in the moral system, as well as what's going on in Washington.
The judicial system is a good example of immorality.
People are getting scared.
They're very concerned.
What are we doing?
And what's the matter?
And some of them resort to the old thing that's been going on ever since the founding of the country.
Oh, the government will take care of that.
Let's get to our government.
And if they're not doing it, we'll talk them into it.
And they've been doing that for a long time.
And now, really, I see the end of that coming because of the bankruptcy.
But there's a lot of good people trying to, you know, compensate for this and, you know, be prepared.
And that is a job.
They are survivalists in many ways because runaway inflation and runaway government, intrusion of our liberties, all the things that we complain about on this program is still there.
What are we going to do?
And I have taken the position that things are going to get worse, and it's up to us to start preparing the answer to the problems that we have.
And that is really a job because getting Congress to quit spending is no easy task.
But I think people should be prepared.
And people talk about surviving.
And I think there's some truth to that.
I mean, if you lived in the inner cities of Cincinnati or the big cities right now, surviving might be on your mind every single minute of the day.
And it doesn't seem like there's any answers there.
So I think the survival thing is one thing.
I think all of us have personal responsibilities to take care of ourselves and be prepared physically and mentally and financially if we can.
And also working with your family and having family coordination and friends and people who understand the system as you do.
And this, I think, at least prepares people for maybe planning and preparing and acting in an orderly fashion, you know, when this major crisis really hits.
And this is something that's going on.
But a lot of people say, well, yeah, you say you talk about financial protection.
Yes, and I strongly believe in it.
I really became a strong believer back in 1971 when our government said, we're bankrupt.
We can't honor our commitment.
You know, yes, we print dollars and we run things and people are accepting them.
And we kept doing that from World War II up to 1971.
Finally, we had to throw in the tile because we wanted to maintain a little bit of gold before we give it away.
And that made me think, how do you survive under these conditions?
Although I had studied and worked on the idea of the universality of the metals for protection on bad times, it was something that was difficult back then because it was illegal to own gold.
But it was certainly a time when I concentrated on the financial aspect of trying to prepare for bad times by investing and being involved in the precious metals and encouraging other people to do this.
And of course, trying to get people to understand philosophically and morally why it's important to know exactly what's going on with the Federal Reserve.
Now that's a job and a half.
And we've done this.
And right now, things are tough.
You hear a lot of ads in the radio and television.
You see what's going on.
You see the poverty in the midst of the trillionaires that exist that seem to have, you know, ironically accumulated huge amounts of wealth.
And the poor keep numbering, even though the argument by our government is, we've got to take care of the people who need the help.
And look at the mess we have.
So I think this is one reason why looking at this, I think investing and understanding and studying the value of precious metals is very important.
This is also the reason why I partner with Birch Gold Group, because they're specialists in this.
And they advise and help people to get invested in the metals industry to have some protection.
And well, I do it, and I've been doing it for years and years.
And yet, I think it's valuable.
And I continue to do it because I think we're getting closer to this real calamity.
But the truth is, under bad circumstances, they might be thinking like Roosevelt did.
Yeah, it's really bad in the depression.
So I think we'll take all the gold from the American people.
So yes, having it and knowing about it is good.
But, you know, that means there's one higher level of what we should do for survival.
And that is understand and get in the struggle for protecting our liberties.
And I think that is so important.
Now, if you want to follow up from this little conversation here about the need to know something about the metals, the Birch Group can send you some material.
And all you need to do is text 989898.
And that is Ron, 989898.
And they'll send you some material and let you know how and what can be done.
Because it's not as simple as it looks and should be.
Because in 1971, you know, I said, yeah, I go to go buy, well, you can't buy it.
It's illegal.
It had been illegal since the 1930s.
So I think this is a very wise thing.
So once again, if you'd like to get some more information from the Birch Gold Group, text Ron 98-9898, and they will send you some materials.
There'll be no charge for it.
And Chris, I want to go ahead and talk a little bit more about how we got where we are, because there's talk now about do we have a uniparty?
You know, I've talked a whole lot about, you know, coalitions bringing people together, and you hear it incessantly in Washington.
Where's the coalition bringing people together?
Emotions Involved in Politics 00:02:28
When will the progressives, who had some principles, should sacrifice their principles to a degree, and some conservatives who will sacrifice some of their principles on privacy and on the war issue and bring these people together in the middle, and that'll solve all the problems.
Well, I think it's that attitude that's made things much, much worse.
It is the sacrifice of liberty to bring back people together and trying to solve these problems.
And matter of fact, the issue is made to be, you know, the political parties.
If the Democrats would do what we tell them, you know, they would do ABC.
If the Republicans would do this, it'd all be all right.
And guess what?
If you study it carefully, you'll find out there's a lot of similarity between the two on what they defend.
People don't like to hear it.
But Republicans waste a lot of money and run up the debt, too.
And that sort of thing.
And how many people are really right now campaigning harder?
If you think the spending is out of control, why don't we just get rid of the Fed or at least audit the Fed and find out you just can't print money out of thin air?
Because that's counterfeiting.
Because the counterfeiter stays in business until he gets caught and he's accused of the corruption.
Right now, that corruption has become noticeable and people are just wondering what to do.
So there's a lot of things that might happen.
But I don't think that, you know, just this concept that, well, what we need is, you know, a unit party and just everybody come together and be one big happy group.
I don't think it's going to work out quite like that.
Chris?
Right, Dr. Paul.
And an article from our friend Jordan Schachtel this week caught our attention.
For those of you out there, he's well worth a read.
He's a great investigative journalist.
You could tell he seeks the truth.
He spoke at our Houston conference this year.
So he writes at the dossier, and he's talking about the two parties, how they're both the source of our problems.
And he's right.
You know, they're both bad on war, welfare, spending, COVID, all the big stuff.
The two parties are together, you know, and they can bicker about social issues on TV.
They're very animated.
So emotions are involved.
You know, AOC is very animated on the right.
They have very, you know, so emotions are involved.
And you have this big fight on television.
Power Play in Politics 00:15:47
But they all stay.
It's like they're at a bowling alley when they put bumpers on the lane.
You know, they have to stay in the lane.
When it comes to the big stuff, wars, welfare, spending, they are together with the exception of very few.
And when they're out of power, when Republicans are out of power, they're like little lambs.
They're for limited government.
They're going to cut your taxes.
They're going to stop all this spending.
This is going back decade after decade after decade.
They just repeat themselves.
And when they're in, they grow government like a weed.
You know, they outspend the Democrats often.
They run up deficits and debts.
But the Democrats are just as bad.
When they're out of power, oh, they're anti-war, civil liberties.
Oh, they hate big corporations.
Boy, they hate those big corporations.
They're for the workers.
But when they're in power, they're the exact opposite.
Look who's championing the Ukraine war.
It's the left with COVID and the war.
It's the big corporations that clean up and get rich on the left.
You know, during COVID, the workers, they were getting thrown out.
Their businesses are getting closed if they didn't get a big corporation jab that ended up not working.
And then what they did to the children with the masks.
So, you know, do you see what happens when they're in power?
It's like a sport that they've created.
You cheer when you're out of power.
And when you're in power, you're not allowed to criticize anything.
And this is a perfect system that has just taken everybody's liberty away and grown the power of the state.
Very good.
You know, the founders had a strong opinion about just how government should run.
And they tried to limit it.
And most of them sort of endorsed in principle the restraint on political parties.
Some of them just didn't like political parties and saw some of the disadvantages of it.
And some even predicted that it would lead to chaos, which we're having today.
But guess what?
Year they started having political parties.
I think it was 1787.
They were still writing the Constitution.
And they've decided that right away, what were the divisions?
The Federalists against the Anti-Federalists.
There were two factions.
So it seems like when you deal with government and you deal with government doing anything, pretending to help us or pretending to fight wars and all these things, there's going to be different opinions.
And they fall into competition and they end up essentially making political parties.
But I think the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists were basically political parties that immediately saw they had to band together to try to get what they want.
And at that time, from an article I read recently, the Anti-Federalists were deeply concerned about the theoretical danger of a strong central government.
You know, that's good.
Like that of Britain, that someday could usurp the rights of the states.
The framers of the Constitution did not want or expect political parties to emerge because they considered them divisive.
Well, I think that's pretty much true, but I think it's also true that maybe the founders were a little bit overly hopeful, maybe a little bit naive, that it wouldn't develop, something like the factions and political parties would develop.
And I think Schachtel's article is making the point that, yeah, there's parties, but what difference does it make?
And of course, I've talked about that a long time.
You know, two parties come together and on the big issues, they're together.
You know, when it comes to monetary policy, foreign policy, social policy, all those things, they come together so they make a uniparty.
And yet the people don't realize that because about most of the concerns people have now is the divisiveness up there and the political parties, you know, fighting with each other.
But I think that's just for decoration.
That's not the real thing that's happened.
Because I think what's happening behind the scenes, the people who pull the strings, pull the strings on spending and monetary policy, wars and all these things.
And actually, getting the people to think about that, think about Ukraine and Vietnam and the Middle East.
They won't come and start thinking about what they're doing to the American people.
And that's where the real problem is, is that here at home, the fighting and scheming means that Their goals are going to be met by trying to get hold of power because it's up for grabs and trying to get more money.
And certainly that's up for grabs when you think of the independence, the people, the pharmaceutical industry, the pro-weaponry industry, the military-industrial complex.
They're all maneuvering for power and control and manipulation of our foreign policy.
So it does exist, there's no doubt about it.
And it's not easy to say that, oh, yes, so-and-so did this, and that's what we have to do.
We've got rid of that and write a law.
No, I think it's the nature of government to have this natural sense of divisiveness because the government's there to sort out the loot.
Even at the beginning, this was the case.
You know, there were arguments at the beginning.
How are we going to control the government?
So the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists got together.
Hamilton and Jefferson, they didn't do too well together.
And they had big issues.
And they talked about central banking.
It turns out to be a big issue.
But it has been pushed aside.
And I think that we have to talk more about how do you protect liberty under the conditions where government is continually growing.
And I think it's practically difficult and maybe impossible.
Because as soon as the government gets the strings of power of divvying up the loot, and when it's extreme, like in a Soviet or Nazi system, they control everything.
And that's what we're working toward.
And, you know, the unit party, the coalitions, it won't work.
The only coalition I believe in is the people who will stand on principle saying our goals in the political life and the defense of our country is to protect and understand personal liberty because that is where the productivity is and that's where peace can be found.
Chris?
Excellent, Dr. Paul.
Yes.
Power operates the same way, you know, whether it's 2,000 years ago with the Roman Empire or the British Empire or the U.S. Empire.
It's all the same on how they operate.
You can't control everyone.
So what they do is they want to consolidate power.
And then you direct the few that hold the real, you know, real power out of that consolidation.
So think about what happened with COVID.
How is it possible that doctors in all 50 states, from pediatricians to all these family doctors, how did they all get it wrong on COVID, on the jabs?
That seems impossible that they could all get it wrong.
Now, there were a few that didn't get it wrong, but they were silenced.
They lost their licenses.
They were censored and they're taken care of.
But everybody else was wrong.
So the only way that that happens is when you have a consolidation of power and everybody looks up.
So the pediatricians say, hey, I'm just saying what the CDC tells me to say.
The FDA, the AMA.
And that's how it trickles down.
So every doctor was not controlled during that disaster, but they look up to who's above them.
Their job is safe because they're doing what they're told.
And that's that.
And everybody was wrong.
So it's the same thing with geopolitics.
Empires, they seek to consolidate countries into a group and then control the main levers of power.
And that's how it is in our Congress.
The deep state, uni party, whatever you want to call them, they don't control every single member.
There's a handful of libertarian types in there.
There's a handful of communist types.
But they are nowhere near the leadership.
The leadership is controlled.
And in essence, that's how the rest of Congress goes along.
So what we need, the lesson in all of this, since power always works this way, is we need decentralization.
We don't need these big power centers.
They're a disaster.
COVID is a perfect example.
It would be totally impossible for every doctor in this country to get it wrong if we had a decentralized medical system.
But right now it's centralized and they're all just taking orders.
So it's the same thing with our liberties.
We need to decentralize power as far down as possible, with the ideal being to the individual, which is probably not possible, but that's the ideal.
So that's the lesson in the power versus liberty battle that goes on through time.
You know, there's bound to be somebody there looking to be the arbiter and passing out the loot.
And that's certainly what Chris is alluding to, who's going to do that and what kind of leadership will be.
So I think that when you have the bigger the government, the more loot there is to distribute and the more incentive there is to have this divisiveness and this pretense, because I think the argument between the parties is mostly there to distract people from the real issues of what's happening behind the scenes.
And the leadership, you know, under today's circumstances is maintained by force and lying and the many things that they do and control and how the money is spent and using like the Department of Justice now to punish one side versus the other.
I mean, it's really in bad shape.
And they have a lot of influence.
Chris points out there's the leadership is a big deal.
Each marching individual in these groups, they go along, and that's the problem.
But the leadership is a big deal.
But the answer to it is leadership too.
Because if you want to combat, let's say we have total collapse of our system, and the remnant grows influential enough to get a message out on what we should do to rebuild it.
So there has to be leadership there.
There has to be somebody who said, well, yeah, you guys warned us that this monetary system was going to break down and we didn't like the Fed either, but what are you going to do about it?
And I think that's the job of the leadership of the people who don't want to use violence and guns to force the redistribution of wealth that they themselves created because they get to rake their share off the top.
But I think that is the difference.
And I think one thing that we promote here at the Liberty Report is to emphasize the tremendous benefits of free markets and voluntarism.
And under those circumstances, there is more prosperity.
There's no need.
So once you start this, this is an argument where some people say, Ron, I think you're making the argument for anarchy.
I said, well, I think we're seeing in some ways a little bit of an episode of anarchy when you look at the inner cities.
So it's not that type of anarchy.
But limited government where people know there's a sharp line.
And I think that Bostiakism were to draw that sharp line means we get rid of about 85% of what the government does.
And that is, if you or I can't go out and take something from our neighbor because they have more of it than we do, and we think we deserve it, or we think our next-door neighbor wants it, so we'll go and take it from our other neighbor because we want to help out and be a humanitarian.
As long as that is existing, What they do, most people know as an individual, you and I can't do that.
People say, hey, they're stealing.
You don't have a right to go into somebody's house, except if you're the government.
If you're the government agent, they can come in for anything.
They might be against homeschooling or something.
They might be against anything at all, and they will come in.
They might think you have a gun and all these things.
So they go in and redistribute wealth.
And so they say, well, most people understand morality well enough.
You know, that would be theft.
But send it to the government.
The government, if you tell these people who like this idea, you say, well, I think it's wrong to take stuff by force.
And they say, what do you mean?
We're not stealing it.
We're not going in.
Yeah, but you're sending a congressman in.
And they pass a law and they go in and they have the guns of the IRS to take it out, take whatever they want.
So the morality is the same.
And that's what people have to understand because the repair of this system is going to take a tremendous philosophic revolution to get people to understand that your right to your life does not give you a right to steal the rights of others.
Chris?
Very good, Dr. Paul.
I'll finish up with my closing thoughts.
Yeah, change will eventually happen, but we shouldn't expect it.
And unfortunately, this is what people do expect.
They expect it to come from the government itself, whereas it's the opposite.
It happens first with a change in attitudes of the people.
When the people are comfortable enough, they will deal with all types of tyranny.
You know, we're obviously comfortable enough in America to deal with the unprecedented stuff that happened over the last few years.
Governments have known this for thousands of years.
As long as you have plenty of food and plenty of entertainment, and America has plenty of food, even though it's getting much more expensive, and there is an endless amount of entertainment, the people will put up with a lot.
But the thing about this and why this story always changes back and forth is the people who are in power, they always want more of it, and they eventually make things uncomfortable for the people.
Discomfort sets in, and then attitudes start to change.
And that's when it starts to filter up to the government.
You know, they're starting, especially on the Republican side, to go against this Ukraine fund, the Ukraine funding.
I don't believe that they've had a change of heart.
It's that the American people are paying tons to just survive, and all this money is going, you know, being wasted in Ukraine.
So the Congress, they keep their ear to the ground.
And if their people are getting upset, they care about their jobs first and foremost.
So they'll now start to be against the Ukraine funding.
So it ultimately starts with the people and filters up to the government.
They never want to get rid of their power, lessen it.
They always want more, but the people have to ultimately be the check on that.
Bringing People Together Voluntarily 00:03:10
Chris, wonderful.
I want to talk a little bit more about the coalition and coming together with people who have disagreements.
But I think the disagreements are developed and produced by the government making all the rules and redistributing wealth and doing what they shouldn't do, getting involved in wars that are controversial and the people have to pay the bills and all the kind of things that we're suffering from now.
But what I'm talking about, bringing people together, is not to bring them together to use the force and divvy up the use of force.
It's to come together with a philosophy of voluntarism and working in a coalition.
Bring people together that are non-violent, and they're not going to do that.
I don't think anybody should be talking about sacrificing ABC in order for another group to suffer BDE or something else.
And they're going to come together and say, Well, I gave up this, I gave up this.
That doesn't work.
And some people think that's much better than people coming together.
Okay, we're going to take 10 billion here, and you get 10 billion here for your special interest.
Well, eventually the economics of that will break down.
But the other thing is, is people come, when they come together, if it's a philosophic thing and it endorses nonviolence, if it endorses voluntarism.
But the magnificent thing about all this is if you care, and everybody will care, even those people who now are suffering in the streets, it's just think of the millions of people that are truly in need by other governments and our own government creating this monster of a problem on our borders.
And it's so unnecessary.
There's so much aggressiveness and the violence of the fraud of bad money and interventionism.
And yet, the voluntary approach and sound money, the little bit that's been tested throughout history has been magnificent.
And it has certainly been very good for us in this country, but we're slowly undermining and taking all our savings and consuming it because we're living on borrowed wealth.
And that's why one of the most important numbers that I look at every day to measure and anticipate what's coming is the national debt.
Oh, and people say that's so boring.
You know, nobody cares about that anymore.
$33 trillion.
That's all right.
We'll just print the money.
It seems to work pretty well.
But no, that's consumption and the destruction of our wealth, destroying the value of money.
And this is why if we get the ideas right and bring it together, it would solve so many of these problems.
And yet the people say, oh, no, that's too much, too close to anarchy.
No, it's close to allowing people to live their own lives as they like, realizing that peace and prosperity is more available under those conditions than any other system.
Export Selection