All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
26:44
Hillary: Censor Speech Or 'We Lose Total Control'!

Hillary Clinton became the latest big-name Democrat to outright demand that the government crack down on speech, telling CNN that if they don't get a handle on Facebook, Twitter/X, TikTok and others they will "lose total control." But should they have total control? Also today: As Russia moves closer to capturing a major fortified strategic town, the US and EU keep pushing Ukraine to continue a bloody and losing battle.

|

Time Text
People Lie, Power Shifts 00:14:28
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Good.
New week.
New week.
Anything brand new in the world going on today?
We'll have to see.
But it seems like it's the same old stuff, just in a different package throughout all history.
You know, war and peace, it goes on and on and ups and downs.
And people lie.
People lied in the past.
They're lying now.
But we had some in the news, Hillary Clinton and others are very worried, you know, that they're losing control.
They've had monopoly control of the media.
And they admit it.
And they think that, but they don't think that is maybe a danger to the First Amendment.
They say, we've conquered the First Amendment.
We own the First Amendment.
We will determine what is truth.
So, but right now, you know, Zero Hedge has an article out, but they call this as the Empire of Lies Crumbles.
If only they, if only it did, the real lies.
But it's back to who's telling the truth.
And I think that's been going on a long time.
And right now, the people in government that runs things that tell constantly the biggest lies ever, they come around.
I think they actually believe it is the truth.
And others believe that it's hopeful that they can maintain their power.
So it's a mixed bad.
But this was pretty interesting stuff.
And it started a couple months ago where they started worrying about maybe truth will break out.
And could that be related to the fact that the hatred toward Trump continues to grow?
Maybe they don't want to hear the truth.
And obviously, I believe they don't want to hear the truth.
That's their whole goal was knowing the truth would end all this nonsense.
So they have to control the scenario.
And in doing that, they have to control government.
They have to control especially education and the justice system.
They do that, and they think they can control attitudes, and they are the arbiter, and they can tell you what's right and wrong and what is good.
But they seem to be a little bit nervous.
Maybe there's still enough liberty left for people to sort it out and find out who the biggest liars are.
And it may be that this campaign and this election may tell us something.
But we can't expect one side to have perfect truth because nobody has it.
But I think we can certainly point to some groups of people who are more likely to lie than others.
And that's what the people have trouble doing, sorting this all out, because there's always political power and money to distort their ability to sort this out.
Yeah, and I think it's an example, another example really of how social and independent media have challenged the legacy media.
And in the free marketplace, social and independent media are winning, and that's something that they don't like because they like having control on the information.
They were hoping that when Dr. Carlson was fired, for example, that he would disappear and they could claim triumph.
We silenced this person, and in fact, he's actually done much better in terms of audience than his old cable show.
Likewise, you had, well, I was in D.C. last weekend.
We had the Rage Against the War Machine rally.
The next day, the Rescue the Republic rally.
That Rescue the Republic rally, if I remember correctly, was live streamed on Twitter X to a million live viewers, a million live viewers, and CNN could never get that.
They get maybe 100,000 on their best show.
So the fact is that this alternative media, it's not even an alternative, it's supplanting the legacy media, and that's why they're having a panic attack.
Now, go to that first clip.
This is Hillary Clinton.
We talked about her last week.
She was saying people who spread disinformation should go to jail.
Now she was saying that if we don't rein in social media, we quote, lose total control.
And she was talking to Smirkonish, who I know you respect as a journalist.
Let's listen to what she actually said.
It's pretty illuminating her view of what we should and shouldn't be allowed to listen to.
That first video clip, if we have it, please.
There should be a lot of things done.
We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted.
But we now know that that was an overly simple view: that if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.
There should be a lot of total.
They have totally they want to keep it.
Yeah, we lose it.
But that's exciting, you know, in a way to see them squirming.
It doesn't solve all the problems, but it also gives encouragement to the people who have been in, you know, tight minorities, hardly anybody there.
Our percentage of people who really agree with a small.
So people should rally to this and say, you know, don't give up.
You know, our numbers are important, and we like to see more and more people looking at things the way we do for peace and prosperity.
But they don't like to admit that there's an erosion of that.
And they get nervous about this because that's power.
That's power.
That's what they live by.
They eat, drink, and sleep this stuff.
Yeah, it's interesting to watch.
On the piece from Zero Hedge, there's another clip where, and this was earlier in the year, where one of the editors of the Wall Street Journal says the same thing.
Why don't we cue that one up and listen to that one?
It's a little bit longer, but I think it's worth listening to that second clip.
And I don't know, we'll play the first 50, 30 seconds, I think, of this.
If you go back really not that long ago, as I say, we kind of owned the news.
We were the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well.
You said it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, then that was a fact.
Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news, and they're much more questioning about what we're saying.
So it's no longer good enough for us just to say, this is what happened, or this is the news.
We have to explain, almost like explain our working.
So readers expect to understand how we saw.
That is just so astounding.
We owned the news.
We owned the facts.
We owned it.
And she even mentioned some of the king players, New York Times, Wall Street Journal.
I don't know if she mentioned another one.
But, you know, the insiders pretend that they're reporting news, you know.
But that she says it with no embarrassment.
It was always with pride.
And she's almost angry, but nowadays people question us, and that's not right.
We need to get a handle on it.
Yeah, it should be questionable.
We are doing the question.
We're the judges.
We're the only people that are good and honorable.
And this is the only source of truth, which is something we've talked about for a long time.
Where does the truth come from?
You have to search for it, and you have to sort it out, and you have to work real hard at being objective.
But that is not very objective to seeking the truth.
But I don't know whether I don't think this stuff is criticized in mainstream media.
They probably don't see this as necessary a wonderful rallying cry so that they can get back to telling the truth again.
So I guess different people react.
We see this as an admission of a serious problem.
And the thing is, yes, they're right.
The mainstream media, the legacy media, has lost control.
But the logical question would be why.
It's not because Elon Musk is out there spreading disinformation and the truth is so fragile that a liar can supplant it.
No, they lost control because they did it to themselves.
Over 20 years, all of the lies, 9-11, I just wrote a little list.
9-11, the Iraq War, they lied to us constantly.
The Arab Spring, RussiaGate, pack of lies, mainstream media, Hunter's laptop, COVID, pack of lies.
Ukraine, a pack of lies.
So the reason they've lost control of the narrative, the reason they've lost control of our trust, is that they've lied to us.
They did it to themselves.
Yeah, it reminds me of this little story I've told before, and that is when the young man from one of our rallies, the Cobby's campus, came up and was very, very friendly and very complimentary about my defense of the Constitution.
I said, yeah, but Kennedy B there standing there beside me, he said the same thing.
I says, why aren't you talking to him?
Because I didn't believe him.
So they don't have to.
Makes some sense.
So here's a young person just searching for the answers, and they sorted it out and decided which one he wanted to believe, even though the words were the same.
So even when they talk about words, here they don't even talk about words.
They're just claiming they are it, that they're the dictators and they will.
And they do not proudly claim that, well, we'll do this and we will follow the First Amendment.
They despise the First Amendment.
Well, here's Jonathan Turley who wrote about it yesterday, I think.
If you put that second clip up, it's very important because he points out what's happening here.
That second JPEG.
There we go.
So this is Turley writing yesterday in his blog.
Clinton added a particularly illuminating line that said the quiet part out loud.
This is all about power and the fear that she and others will lose control over speech.
Now, we've heard it, but I'll read it again.
Whether it's Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok, wherever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.
And it's not just the so-called social and psychological effects, it's real harm.
It's child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.
To which Turley correctly remarks, Clinton continues to offer a textbook example of the anti-free speech narrative.
While seeking sweeping censorship for anything deemed disinformation, Clinton cites specific examples that are already barred under federal law, like child porn.
So she's saying things that are already illegal and saying we're going to get some of these if we don't do censorship.
Hypotypical.
That's why we don't make much progress here.
But in many ways, I do think we make progress.
We have, yes, it's subtle, it's quieter, the numbers are small.
But when you have people like Jonathan out there fighting for us, and we've had so many good people come to our conferences that know what we're talking about because we're learning from the people we bring to us.
We respect these people, so we might not be the arbiter, but we can make a judgment on who is doing their very best to tell us the truth and explain it to us.
So that's why I think we latch on to individuals that are really in our camp when they're trying to expose the people who are real liars, because it is well known that truth is treason.
And when you have an empire, you cannot have people telling the truth.
And that's Hillary's worrying now.
Truth is breaking out, and we have to stop it.
Somebody might like it.
Well, that's the one thing about Twitter exit they can't stand too, is that we can self-select.
We can customize our newsfeed.
And I have them on several topics.
I customize a feed, and I get both sides.
I get a lot of neocons, but you can create your own newsfeed.
They don't like that.
They want to be screaming in your ear.
And if you see someone who is rude or says things you don't like, hate speech, for example, anti-Semitism, whatever, you can simply block that person and you'll never see another post from this person again.
You know, it gives you the power, it gives the viewer the power to decide what he or she wants to see.
And that's what they can't stand.
You know, one thing that encourages me is when those who don't agree with her are talking, they never come out.
Some do, but most of them don't come out and say, you know, our real enemy are the libertarians.
We have to stop the libertarians.
We have to stop these people who are radical for liberty.
And they don't say that, even though that's what they are.
They're doing.
Which means that in their interpretation, there's a limit to just saying liberty is horrible because they have to attack every good thing that came out of the American Revolution.
I mean, that was the whole issue.
And of course, it's been shrinking ever since.
Yes.
Well, I think the main point we want to make is this is not an isolated phenomenon.
It's not just Hillary Clinton.
It's not just this Wall Street Journal lady.
I mean, you're seeing it over and over again.
And in fact, we have a couple more clips, and I think we've played some of these, but it's worth revisiting.
Now, this is this next one, if we grab our things, is Tim Walsh, the candidate for the Vice President of the United States, who is also, as they say, saying the quiet part out loud.
If we can cue that second to last video up, it's going to be a quick one, so listen quickly.
Here's Tim.
I think we need to push back on this.
There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.
I think we need to push back.
There's no guarantee of free speech.
So, and I've used it because others have used it.
And they say the most important thing is the First Amendment is that you can criticize your government.
And that's where they draw the line.
Push Back On Misinformation 00:04:55
You know, well, you can't do that.
The government is supposed to guide you, not the First Amendment.
So they're always after somebody who wants to reveal the truth.
And you know what?
It's going to continue.
But victories and failures have been eternal.
But all I know is that the sense of respect and honor that you place on a person is what do they think about telling the truth.
And if they don't, then they will hide their nihilistic beliefs.
You guys waste your time.
Why are you worrying about it?
Why do you go to these conferences?
Because this is a waste of time.
You're dealing with something that's impossible.
And yes, it might be difficult.
And maybe that's the way the world was put together.
That this was to be something negotiated.
And maybe it's deep down in all our hearts and minds as an individual thing to decide what the real truth is.
And maybe that's what life is all about.
But it's a challenge.
And of course, it's been a challenge from the beginning.
And you know, I think of our educational system in my little booklet, I compared that to the education of the founders.
It's astounding.
And when you look at the results, it's just utterly amazing how well educated they were.
So those kind of issues continue.
And so there's been people looking for the truth and finding truth thousands of years ago under their own circumstances.
And I think that's what life is all about, seeking truth.
Yeah, unless they don't let you do it, which is what they want to do.
Yeah, they really blast you, put you in prison.
You know, there was somebody the other day that said, well, you know, Trump, Trump's in trouble.
He wasn't a Trump supporter.
Trump's really in trouble.
But he was lamenting a little bit.
He says, because, you know, his troubles aren't going to go away.
If he loses this thing, they're going to put him away.
They've already tried to kill him twice.
So that's how bad it is.
So it's going to continue till somebody resolves it.
Maybe the election will say, oh, everybody's throw in the towel.
We're all peaceful now.
We're all going to join the libertarian movement.
Freedom is ours.
Just don't hold your breath.
Well, the last one I want to put out, and we have put it on the show before, but it's a particularly ghoulish, typically ghoulish, I should say, from John Perry.
You put up the first minute and 18 seconds.
Let's watch this once again because it's important to understand these are powerful people and they want to shut us up.
And I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing.
And it's part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue.
It's really hard to govern today.
You can't, you know, there's no, the referees we used to have to determine what's a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated to a certain degree.
And people go and people self-select where they go for their news or for their information.
And then you just get into a vicious cycle.
So it's really, really hard, much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 45, 50 years I've been involved in this.
And, you know, there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, et cetera.
But look, if people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence.
So which is a major block.
But what if we do agree with him and he's the first person we think we should get rid of because he's the one that's causing all the trouble?
But it says something that it astounds me that he's able to get up there and talk like that.
And I think there are always the ones who know what's right and wrong.
And anybody else is sick.
He compared it to medicine.
He's got to get rid of people who are sick.
And well, who's going to take care of if the agreement is if you have the majority, he wants to get the majority on his side.
Majority's Role in Conflict 00:04:30
But one of the worst dictatorship is the dictatorship of the majority.
That's how you destroy minorities.
And yet, most people think that it's sacred.
It's always like it's godlike because as soon as you go, oh, there's 10 people in the room, as long as you have six, you know, we can go and we'll have the majority.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, the second one we're looking at, and we'll just do this real quickly because we'll use up some time on this, is the imminent Russian capture of Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine.
That's a very important small town.
It's the, if you put on this area here, Russia captures another village in eastern Ukraine, putting strategic Pokrovsk within four miles, so they're four miles away from really the last line of defense Ukraine has in eastern eastern Ukraine.
And the reason why it's important is because for a number of reasons, Dr. Paul, it relates to the first issue, which is propaganda and the media lying to us, because the media keeps lying and saying that Ukraine is winning, even as it churns through Ukrainian bodies.
Now they want to recruit, they want to forcibly recruit kids as young as 18 and force them to go into the meat grinder.
This demonic machine that the U.S. and EU is using to try to take Russia, and it's not working.
And Ukraine is losing, even with an extra $8 billion we sent last week to them.
And if you go to the next one, this explains the significance of this town falling, which is imminent within the next few days or weeks.
From the majority of the war, Pokrovsky has acted as a logistical hub and rear operations base for Ukraine's eastern defensive lines.
It is astride both a key railroad juncture and the highway to Ukraine's fourth largest metro, Dnipro.
The city's defensive positions are a final obstacle to Russia's access to most of the region.
I underline this part.
If Pokrovsk falls, Russian forces will be able to easily flank entrenched troops in the north and south of the country.
You know, I like to think about, you know, the principle of the homeland.
And when people are being destroyed by others who seem to be not part of the homeland, those that it's their own home, they last longer, they're more determined, and they have, you know, more to fight for.
And that, to me, explains why Afghanistan never were conquered.
And it's not just these last 40 years of us being stupid enough to think we can conquer them.
It's been throughout a lot, hundreds and hundreds of years, that that is the case.
But I think about it in Ukraine.
Well, the Ukrainians are under the gun right now.
And are they the homeland people?
If they are, we should be sympathizing psychologically for that.
Well, those Russians are coming into the homeland and destroying Ukraine.
But you have to look at the history.
You have to look at the history prior to 2014, because there was a homeland that was a mixture because of previous divisions and property lines out of other wars.
And NATO was not proving the whole fact that the Ukrainian people, especially in eastern Ukraine, had elected somebody that they wanted to at least be friends with Russia.
So the spirit of the homeland did not flow back to the people who stayed there and looked for NATO to expand and Europe to expand and billions and billions of dollars spent there.
So hardly can we be sympathetic because of, oh, it's their homeland, you know, and these Russians are invading it.
It's a little more complex than that.
Well, the thing is, in Russia, just as in the Middle East, you have this group in America that controls foreign policy, the neocons, they want to destroy Russia.
And so they're the ones pushing Ukraine into the war.
They want to destroy Iran.
So they're pushing us and Israel into war with Iran.
They don't care about the consequences of their actions.
They never face the consequences of their actions.
They just keep moving higher up in their think tanks, no matter how wrong they are.
So there's a really active body that's like a cancer in our country.
The Coming Election's Dark Omen 00:02:32
With a sacrifice of guess what?
The American system, you know, the taxpayer, the dollar, and all the things that go along there.
That is a cost that they don't talk about a whole lot.
But eventually it will determine what happens.
So when these things get way out of control throughout history, they end with a disaster.
And it's usually an economic ending.
It's usually related to the destruction of currency or over-regulation and expanding one's empire too far, and it ends.
And I think what people are sensing right now, the cracks are there.
I think the ending has begun and it's going to get worse in the next matter of fact.
Who knows what will come out of the election?
There might be something to come out of the election that will excite more people to think, well, enough is enough.
And there may be more hatred and more rejection of the United States, regardless who wins.
And because this whole system is fragile.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul.
I'm just going to ask the audience to do a simple favor, which is to hit the thumbs up or like button if you're watching this show right now.
And to please share the show with other people that you know.
Please put some comments down below, whatever medium you're watching on.
Let us know what you liked and disliked about the show and suggest what we can do better in the future.
And we appreciate you watching the show.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I want to thank all our viewers for tuning in today because it's very necessary for us to see and hear from you because we're interested in interacting with this principle of liberty, which I believe is growing by leaps and bounds.
It's just a little bit hidden and people don't know about it.
But it's there, it's growing.
Ideas have consequences.
And I think we've already seen that when the ideas are correct, they very often can be smoldering along and also burst out, as did our revolution many, many years ago.
And there's no reason to think that it's worse than ever before.
It seems to be pretty bad.
I'll agree with you on that.
But I also know that the work and activity of other, many other groups that share our belief in liberty are out there, and I think that opinion will prevail.
Export Selection