All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
35:39
Blinken Rebuffed in Israel: 'No Palestinian Return to North Gaza!'

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Israel trying to convince Tel Aviv to slow down on killing civilians, stop flattening infrastructure, and to not ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians. Israel's response thus far has been a hard "no." Has Washington ever been so impotent? Also today, thousands of amputee children in Gaza continue to suffer as US-provided bombs destroy their lives.

|

Time Text
Debate Over Gaza Hostages 00:08:42
Over the place, I'm a good sleeper.
You must be a good sleeper, yeah.
So good sleepers, that's a good idea to be a good sleeper.
Sleepers awake.
But pay attention to what's going on around us.
Maybe you can help out now and then.
But sometimes we make that, well, not sometimes, we make a lot of effort, but sometimes we help out a little bit.
At least that's a modest approach.
But today, we want to approach the same principle of how we can help straighten out foreign policy.
Because we're going to quote from our friend Justin Hamas, who was in Congress and somebody I helped to get in Congress.
And he attacks people who are talking about isolationism.
And he's good on foreign policy, so we'll talk about him.
And also the nonsense going on, you know, in the Middle East.
And we'll start off with the whole idea of hostages, you know, and what to do.
And Dave DeCamp reports on this, and this is a good report.
He starts off by saying, Israel just killed a senior Hamas official who was involved in negotiations, making prospects of new deals less likely.
So he helped, and he was Hamas, and 100 Israelis got released.
So they go and murder the guy.
Yeah, that's smart.
I mean, that's what, well, I don't know.
There would be a diplomatic answer to that.
They say, well, it was done in self-defense.
We can't have people just releasing hostages right and left.
But this is the one thing that's going on now is this debate on what we can do in telling people when they can return to Gaza.
Of course, I think it's been pretty explicit.
I think the intent of Israel has not been, I don't think they have to talk too much about it, but I've never thought for a minute that they intended to do anything more than make sure there are no Palestinians there.
Well, they've said it outright.
Yeah, but now we have Blinken.
He's blinked his eyes for a while and went over there.
And the Israelis are expected to tell him that they gave him the rules.
Yeah, you sent us money and you've helped us out, but there are certain things we're not going to do just because the United States, even a United States diplomatic source and administration where there's split, maybe we should start talking about some reasonable approach to the Palestinians.
But the Israelis are expected to tell Blinken that Israel will not allow Palestinians who fled North Gaza after everybody, after the Israelis, get out, get out, we're coming in.
Well, they didn't have much choice, so they left.
And there's a chance now, if there'd be more diplomacy and people finally giving up on this war, which it doesn't look like it's going to be soon, then the Palestinians might like to go back and see what's left of their houses.
So guess what?
It's not going to be supported by Israel, you know, and it just means the war is going to be perpetual.
They say, oh, oh, no, the Secretary, that Israel won't allow Palestinians who fled North Korea to return home until a new hostage deal is done.
So we seem to be willing to give out the money too readily, thinking that we're going to maintain our empire.
But this is anti-empire period of time we're living in now.
I think each day, fortunately, the empire is getting weaker, but it's also very tragic because a lot of people who are suffering.
And we have some pictures here that we've talked about that just shows the terrible suffering and the damage done in Gaza.
But anyway, if you pick one side over the other, they can find that you're a bigot.
But that is not our goal.
Our goal isn't to pick one and say, we know this group is perfect in everything they do, and this group started it all, and therefore they're to blame.
But I think our goal has been from the very beginning of us being organized, and this was when we were in Congress, is to present the case for non-intervention, to present the case for a constitutional foreign policy of minding our own business instead of violating the Constitution and fighting wars and letting presidents, who knows, we might get a powerful president in charge someday.
Who knows what he's doing, you know, or doesn't have the vaguest idea what he's doing, and who knows what happens to foreign policy.
Right now, the Secretary of War of Secretary of Defense, yeah.
Yeah, Secretary.
He's still in the hostage.
Yeah, here he is.
They take all his power.
Fortunately, a lot of times it's in Ab and it might save lives.
But a lot of times, most of the times, what they do is they get us bogged down in another war.
But as long as you can hide the body bags and the pay and the suffering and the civilians being killed, forget it.
Let's talk about something else.
Yeah.
Well, on the killing of the negotiator, I mean, if your goal is ethnic cleansing, you don't want to have hostage negotiation.
And that seems to be a faction.
Now, not all of the Israeli government, that's a very strong and powerful faction, does not want any negotiation because they want ethnic cleansing.
Well, here's what we're talking about.
And Dave DeCamp did a great write-up, but I've picked a different clip because the photo I think was better.
If we can put that first one up, here is, now, Blinken was there yesterday.
He was talking.
He met with Netanyahu.
He met with their defense minister.
But here's the headline.
Israel to Blinken.
Gazans can't return to north until hostages are released.
And here's the write-up of this from Axios, if we do the next one, because this will give you the details.
So here's what Blinken, he came to Israel.
Again, I think this is his fourth visit so far.
So he came to Israel, but before he arrived, he said, quote, Palestinian civilians must be able to return home as soon as conditions allow, he said in Doha.
They cannot and they must not be pressed to leave Gaza, he stressed.
Now this after several prominent ministers in the Israeli government literally said that they should leave, and yet Tanyahu himself said they should be encouraged to leave Gaza.
So there's a clear line here where the U.S. says one policy, which is not to ethnically cleanse Gaza, because that's a political liability to Biden, increasingly so.
But Israel is saying another thing.
And let's go to the next clip.
This is from the same Axios article.
Here's Israel's reply to what Blinken said.
We're not going to allow Palestinians to go back to their homes in northern Gaza if there's no progress with the release of hostages.
Well, that goes back to what you said, Dr. Paul, which is they've killed the hostage negotiators.
And then they say, well, we're not getting any progress in release of who wants to be the next negotiator if you keep getting blown up.
So it's a terrible situation there that's happening.
And it really is a, it's an extraordinary to see the impotence of U.S. foreign policy, to have Blinken go over repeatedly, hat in hand, saying, could you do this?
And these guys said, no, take a hike, you know, take a hike.
And to seemingly have no sticks, only carrots.
It's just, I've never seen anything like it.
You know, the sentiment has obviously changed here in the last couple months like I never expected to be so dramatic.
And that is there's been such a solid support for Israel that there was never a criticism made out loud.
But now, all of a sudden, because what is happening in Gaza and the tragedy of Gaza, that it has literally split the Democratic Party in half.
Israel's Tragic Divide 00:07:52
And fortunately, it has stimulated some Republicans to start thinking along our way.
Why send our money to all these different places?
Their trouble is they still want to know, well, one group is better than the other.
We have less dilemma.
We don't think the money should be taken from the American people and make them pay and pick sides when the sides are going to be very difficult and the authority is not really there to do it.
But war would have been, I keep thinking, how many less lives would have happened if we'll even start after World War II if we always use the Constitution to go to war.
And how many civilians have died?
And how many military people have died over this period of time?
And then again, if you take the argument of some people who are saying, well, World War I was a terrible war to usher in an age or a century of war.
And that, you know, ushered in that century where the people, just think of the war, the bombs that we have dropped.
You know, we know how many bombs dropped in World War II.
Then we get to the point where we met, there was a big date when we were involved in Vietnam.
We just dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did all of World War II.
So it makes no sense.
And I know the majority of the people, if they had an honest choice and, you know, and honest information.
But the dilemma is, whom are you going to believe?
You know, who will really provide the answers for us?
And they are searching.
But I think that eventually, you know, the concerns does bring out the truth.
And I think this is what's happening right now.
The taxpayers are starting to realize a point that we've tried to make forever.
You can't separate economic, domestic, economic policy from foreign adventurism.
The cost of that affects the people at home.
And even if you don't send the marching troops over there, if you send all these weapons and you destroy, you know, true free markets and trade policies and free trade, you're going to end up a real mess.
And that's where we are today.
And the only benefit coming from this is that the negative part of maintaining an empire is undermined.
And I have no personal sympathies for the American empire.
I don't think that's the part of America that I want to be the defender of.
I want to know what liberty is all about and why and how we lost our way.
Yeah, well, you know, the situation is fascinating here because if you look at the juxtaposition of what Blinken is saying and what's happening in Israel, put this next one on.
Here's Blinken put out a tweet today, I think it was.
He said, I met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and reaffirmed our support for Israel's right to prevent another October 7 from occurring.
I also stressed, now this is the main point of his trip, Dr. Paul, I also stressed the importance of avoiding civilian harm, protecting civilian infrastructure, and ensuring the distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
Now, avoiding civilian harm, it's a little bit late to say that when you've got about 25,000 civilians who have been slaughtered.
And then he emphasized the importance of protecting civilian infrastructure.
Well, go to the next picture.
This is civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
It is completely destroyed.
And there was a recent estimate by the UN that 70 to 80 percent of all buildings have been destroyed.
So he goes there after everything's destroyed and said, if you wouldn't mind, please stop destroying the infrastructure.
And then here's another example of it.
Now, this is NBC News.
If you can go to the next one.
NBC News, the U.S. expects Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip to end in the coming weeks.
NBC reports from Anthony Blinken.
Well, it didn't happen that way because let's look at the next tweet.
The U.S. expects it to end.
Well, Blinken goes to meet with their defense minister and he confirms that Israel will escalate operations in the Con Unis area until Hamas leaders are located.
So you have this crazy disconnect, Dr. Paul, where the U.S. is saying one thing.
We're going to get them to de-escalate.
We're going to get them to stop killing civilians.
And then the Israelis completely ignore anything that Blinken says and says, well, we're not going to do that.
We're going to escalate.
Now, some people might say, well, Ron Paul, what right do you to tell the Israelis what to do?
And that would be your position and our position that we shouldn't, except for the fact that, as we mentioned several times, there's the retired Israeli general that said, every bomb that falls is from America.
Every dollar that we're spending on this war is from America.
And he wasn't saying it.
He was saying that we need more.
But that's the point.
The reason why we have a saying what's happening is that unfortunately in this terrible situation where we are extremely, extremely interventionist when it comes to Israel, everything that's being done is being done in our name with our weapons and with our money so it reflects on us.
You know, there's the moral issue that I think is important.
And the first thing is, is us being involved there and harm coming, we have moral responsibility.
That's what you're talking about.
You know, they take our money and we send it over and a lot of people die from it.
But the morality of us telling other people what to do and then it backfires.
And there's a lot of downside to this in other areas.
And, you know, the one thing that governments have been notorious, our government, especially from the Civil War on, is that civil liberties mean nothing when you're in a hot war.
And sometimes they create the war in order to undermine our civil liberties.
And that's an ongoing process.
So no matter how you try to justify the war, the wars generally end up with us having less liberty.
And that's unfortunate.
Murray Rothbard said the only war, and he was a pretty good student of history, he said there was only one war that he knows about where the people ended up with more freedom rather than less.
And he says it was the American Revolution.
Every place else, the wars, I mean, think of it all the way from Civil War and World War I and II and the rules and regulations and the suffering and the inflation.
Oh, oh, this has been made worse.
But people don't want to think in that way.
They think in media, you know, what's it going to be like?
Oh, well, we won't have a draft.
Maybe we'll just register and make sure we'll get you if we need you.
You know, so it was, you know, during these wars, in my lifetime, you know, several times, you know, whether it was Korea or World War II, that we used the draft.
And I sort of noticed that when they sent me a little letter.
Well, you know, Rothbard was right.
It is the only war where we ended up with more liberty.
But how ironic now that we've squandered all that, we actually have less liberty than we had under King George.
Taxation, you know, movement, you got to, you know, everything is controlled by the government, so we squandered all that liberty we got.
Isolationism Debate 00:12:05
But you mentioned the moral issue, and that I think takes us to the next story.
If you're ready to move on, if we can put on this next link.
And this is a tragic story.
I hate talking about it.
I hate seeing it and I hate reporting it, but I think it's important.
And this is a Reuters piece.
Gaza's Child Amputees Face Further Risks Without Expert Care.
Now, if you're only listening to the show, you won't see this terrible picture.
But there's a young child with one leg cut off and another leg in a very strange-looking cast.
And let's go to the next one because this is a little bit about it.
11-year-old Noor's left leg was almost entirely torn off when her home in Jabilia, Gaza, was hit by an explosion in October.
I would call it an explosion.
I caught an Israeli bomb, but okay, we'll quibble about that.
Now her right leg, fitted with a heavy metal bar and four screws drilled into the bone, may have to be amputated.
Let's go to the next one.
This is 11-year-old Noor.
She says, it hurts me a lot.
I'm afraid they'll have to cut off my other leg, she said from her hospital bed.
I used to run and play.
I was so happy with my life.
But now when I lost my leg, my life became ugly and I got sad.
I hope I can get an artificial limb.
And it goes on.
In bombed out Gaza, a generation of child amputees is emerging as Israel's retaliatory oblitz after Hamas's October 7th attacks has led to blast and crush injuries as explosive weapons tear through densely packed high-rise housing blocks.
Thousands of children like this situation.
You know, this desperately look for something good coming this, which is very, very difficult.
But there was a picture.
Even the picture I'm going to talk about wasn't worse as far as the tragedy go, but it was symbolic of a tragedy.
And I think most people in this country, whether they lived during that time and watch the desperate desire for us to get out of Vietnam in the 60s, and that was the picture of the teenager.
She probably was 12 or 14.
I think she was totally nude.
And she was, you know, amidst some flames and napalm hit her.
And she, I think she was burned and all this stuff, but she survived.
And I think that picture in itself brought it back home because that was the first war they were actually ever able to see.
Some pictures coming back.
And there had been a lot of the progressive Democrats back at that time were half decent on the principle of trying to stop war.
But the picture, I think, was a very powerful message.
And this, to me, this picture reminded me of that.
And I think there will be a reaction.
What are we doing this?
You say, well, that's those people over there, the Middle East.
They're not civilized.
We don't have to worry about that.
But it's our money.
It's our policy.
It's our United Nations that we deal with.
We set the stage for this.
It's part of our empire.
And guess what?
It's part of profiteering.
I mean, why do we have all this?
Because who's making the most money?
The military-industrial complex.
So we have a lot to bear, but if you can close your mind to it, you don't have to.
That's why this picture, when people see it and look at it, they should remember that picture in Vietnam.
Why are we doing this?
And why are we participating?
And they cannot get off the hook by saying, well, that's not us.
American troop didn't drop that bomb or that sort of thing.
But maybe we had something to do with where the bombs came from and who made a buck off it.
Yeah.
Well, we would never show them on the show, but I can attest to the fact that on Twitter X, there are photos that are a million times worse than that of children.
And I don't want to go into it further, but it's terrible and awful.
Go to the next one if you can.
This is just the last little piece from that article.
More than 1,000 children had undergone leg amputations.
And I will add that many of these have been taking place without anesthesia because they don't have anesthesia there.
More than 1,000 have undergone leg amputations, sometimes more than once or on both legs by end of November, according to UN Children's Agency UNICEF, in a conflict where Gaza health authorities say nearly a quarter of injuries are among children.
Poor hygiene and medicine shortages spell more complications and amputations on existing injuries, some of which may not be survivable, doctors say.
And again, this goes, I was going to put this next tweet up because this goes back to the point of, well, what's it have to do with us?
We're not the ones doing it.
Well, let's go to this next tweet.
And I just found this is an Israeli news source.
U.S. security assistance to Israel continues, as does the criticism.
INSS, this is an Israeli news outlet, researcher Jesse Weinberg writes, for the second time, and this is not recent, this is a couple weeks ago, for the second time since the start of the war in Gaza, the Biden administration decided to bypass Congress and grant Israel urgent security aid after Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has exercised his authority to declare a state of emergency that requires immediate approval of the transfer.
So here's what you have: the spectacle of Anthony Blinken declaring emergency, immediately transferring these weapons to Israel, and then going to Israel and saying, would you mind not using them on children so much?
That's how far our government has gone away from being a decent republic.
That to me does blend in because when it's financing, financing, the big stuff is secret.
That's why there's two things our government will not allow us to do.
We need a full audit of every single penny in the Pentagon, the way they spend that.
And when a certain senator tried to put that in a bill, oh, we don't want to lay part.
I don't know what that does.
Why would that hurt people?
Well, it would expose the culprits who are living off this thing.
And then, generally speaking, all kinds of financial problems that we have, whether it's a cooked-up deal with COVID or whatever, because you've got to spend trillions of dollars, but you can't get it.
That's not approved by the Congress.
I mean, they have this power of the purse.
That's one of the worst things that ever happened to our country.
It did, on the short run, benefit more than just the deep state.
There was a spin-off on that, but that's ending.
Now the bills are being paid.
And guess who's paying the bills?
The people who thought they were getting a big deal of this.
And they're the ones who are living out on the streets and they're going bankrupt and they're going to suffer as a consequence a lot more.
And one thing that would help is if we had a transparent government.
But it's not going to happen soon.
I think the fight is going to continue, that we know everything the Fed does and how they work their finances.
And we know what all the money does.
A lot gets out on the Pentagon, but you know how they get away with it?
It's always for national security interests.
And that makes me ill because it's always, as far as I'm concerned, jeopardizing our national security because it doesn't help us to go over.
And the verification of this is the dwindling power of the Republic and the dwindling power and influence of the dollar.
So all these things are coming to fruition.
And these are the things that have been predicted by Austrian economists a long time ago and people who have been concerned about our freedoms.
You're absolutely right.
I mean, the middle class is paying through inflation.
You go to the store, try to buy something.
Well, that's it.
And the elites hate their guts.
And they don't know it because they throw them a flag and wave the flag and you're patriotic.
These people hate the middle class's guts and they're getting rich on it.
Well, let's move ahead to a bad topic, but a good guy, and this is Justin Amash, if we can put this next piece up.
Now, we saw this on anti-war.com.
It's the lead article today, so you can read it in its entirety by going there.
But he put up an article about isolationism.
And this is just a headline, but here's a tweet that he put in there.
This has caused a big debate on Twitter X, and so he wrote a little essay about it.
So we can go to the next one.
Here's the operative point.
He said, the way to protect U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere is to bring them home.
Congress hasn't authorized these overseas military engagements.
Previous authorizations from decades ago plainly do not apply to current circumstances.
Constitutional limits exist to deter reckless wars.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Yeah, see, you know, what's ironic is the policies that we have now condemning isolationism and those right-wingers and who knows what will not go to war.
Of course, there's the military-industrial complex and promoting all this.
But the isolation, it's a canard, and that's why I was delighted that Justin put this out.
Because if you want to talk about isolation and you look at the movement in the last two or three, even as recent as the last two and three years, although the seeds had been sown, that our empire will end because all world reserve currencies fade because they always abuse it.
And it was destined that that would happen to the dollar.
And it is.
So we're not surprised.
But we have more isolationism.
We think we're the king of the hills, so we throw our weight around, we put on terrors, we put on blockades, we do all these things, and people keep trusting the dollar, and it's lasting for a long time, and nobody has a way of, how do you transition away from it?
So the very policies that we follow now are the real, truly isolationists and the war-mongering people, I'll tell you that.
So that's the part that we have to try to realize because it's always been annoying to me when they say you're an isolationist.
Like, yeah, that's the worst thing in the world.
Matter of fact, because they've practically ruined that word, that means you don't want to talk to people and you don't want to be free market people.
You don't want to travel and share cultures and things.
But the word I like to use, we use it all the time, is non-interventionism.
And that's quite a bit different than isolating ourselves from the world, which they have just caused.
And we're going to see a lot more isolation with our country on the trap path we're on.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, Justin wrote about he had some pushback on this because, as you say, he was accused of being isolationist.
But I think he had an excellent, excellent example that he put up.
And if we can put, I'll just read a little bit of an excerpt.
This is great because here's his response to being accused of being isolationists.
He said, first, if not stationing troops in dozens of countries around the world constitutes isolationism, then the vast majority of nations on earth are isolationists.
But we don't call those countries isolationists because that's not what isolationism is.
Similarly, if someone refrains from stationing armed guards at dozens of neighborhoods around the city, we don't call that person a loner.
That's just not what it means to be a loner.
So it's an excellent point that he makes in this essay, and it's definitely worth reading.
That's for sure.
And I think instincts are on our side.
Borders and Property Rights 00:02:19
I think people, if you can get an analogy that they can understand, is when you talk about your neighborhood, you don't have a right to go into their buildings and houses and use their stuff.
And why should a country not be doing the same thing?
And therefore, borders would be quite a bit different.
There would be borders.
I think there would be borders in a purely libertarian society because basically the land would be owned by the people and they would have a right to pick and choose who they're going to let into their property and come into their haven there.
But that isn't what we have.
We have a prohibition against property ownership.
Right now, if you protect your property, what about this astounding thing is when the mob walks in and tears up a place and it just wheels out Carlos and Carlos right out in the open and there's no prosecution.
They don't arrest them or do anything about it.
So that is what the real problem is.
They've lost the concept of private property.
If the owner defends himself, he's more likely to go to jail than the thief.
And that to me, there was one case where the, I don't know, it was a major store like Target or something like that, and the individual employee went after the criminal and he pursued the criminal because he just couldn't stand to see this guy stealing this stuff.
And this guy got, and I don't know whether he got fired or what, but he got into big trouble because he, oh, well, that's against the rules.
We can't go off our property.
Jeez.
You should have a right to defend your property.
Well, here's a good visual for what Amas is saying.
Now, he said, the best way to protect our troops is to bring them home.
Well, let's put on this next map.
And you suggested I find this, and it was a great suggestion because this map is only from mid-December.
At least 85 attacks on U.S. bases in the Middle East since October 17th.
Attacks on U.S. Bases 00:04:39
And if you look around Syria and Iraq, you see all of these attacks on U.S. bases.
By the way, everyone in Syria, as our viewers know, is illegal.
We are not allowed to be there.
It's their territory.
It's their property, just like Syria is not allowed to have bases in Texas, right?
So attacks on our illegal bases there.
I would say semi-illegal in Iraq because the Iraqis want us to leave.
But nevertheless, each one of these attacks, and I think it's well over 100 now, Dr. Paul, I'm thinking you're keeping better track than me on it.
Each one of these puts these soldiers in jeopardy, in danger.
They've been injured.
Some have died.
For what purpose?
No purpose at all.
Well, the political stuff here is if you're not willing to say that America has just been attacked and we have to go to war against people who are bombing us, you know, this sort of thing.
But it makes no sense.
I don't know how many there were in Iraq, but didn't we democratize Iraq?
Didn't we give them their freedom and release it?
And there's more right there.
And so they're all over the place.
So we've used force to expand our empire, but we haven't expanded our friendships around the world.
And that's why it will come to an end because we will spend our goodwill that we at one time had to a degree, and we'll have spent all our money.
So it will end.
But the big question is, that will create a vacuum.
What will it be replaced by?
And I have a suggestion if anybody cares to know what we would like to suggest as a replacement for the system that has brought us to our knees.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I'm going to close out, I think, Dr. Paul.
And I don't do this as often as I should.
And I'll try to remember to put a link in.
But I just want to commend to our viewers an article.
And it's a top article right now on RonPaulInstitute.org website.
But it's written by someone who I've come to really have respect for.
And it's Alistair Crook, who's a retired British diplomat and person, I think, of great experience in the Middle East, great knowledge, the old school diplomats who actually learned the languages and understood the areas.
But the article is called Something Lost, Never to Be Found Again.
And it's a very interesting, deep thinking piece.
I highly recommend.
I often find when I read Crook's writing that he's able to capture in words what I'm trying to think about in my brain.
So anyway, I don't do it very often, but have a look.
I'll put a link in the description for the article.
Very good.
As I've mentioned before, when I look at problems like this, I try to dissect it out and think that, well, is what we're doing moral?
And is it granted that authority by the Constitution?
You know, also how practical the issues are.
And I come down and say, you know, the answer is no, no, no on what we're doing now.
But I think in foreign policy, though, if nothing else, it's totally impractical.
But, you know, in Congress, they also had that additional question, and they would list the lobbyists, lobbyists over here for it, and the lobbyists against it, to help the congressmen figure out how to vote, because sometimes they didn't know until the last minute, okay, well, do they have, are they in my district or not?
So, but we have to have a better way.
Practicality is a pretty good way of doing it.
It's not practical to have counterfeit money run by a government secretly.
It's not good to have a non-interventionist foreign policy and trying to run an empire.
So there's a lot of practical arguments against this.
And besides, the greatest and the best argument for it is if you study history and look at it, you'll find out the greatest prosperity and peace comes from countries that respect liberty.
And that's pretty neat.
You enjoy liberty.
Oh, that means you can do what you want.
No, not quite that way.
You can't hurt people.
You can't steal from people.
Guess who are the biggest thieves?
And it's the government stealing from the people all the time and interfering and enforcing policies that people are dying, whether they're living in this country or elsewhere.
They bring on the problem.
So it is very practical, as far as I'm concerned.
If you're trying to find answers for the problems we have today, is endorse the principles of personal liberty.
Export Selection