All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:51
Drowning In Their Tears: Elites Panic At 2024 Election Results

With the 2024 election in the bag, there is no shortage of surprises. Including the surprising campaign appearance of anti-Fed, anti-spending, and even anti-neocon sentiment. And record viewership of the Liberty Report. Also today...Politico warns of Trump seeking "revenge"...but is it really revenge or justice?

|

Time Text
Why Voting Obsession Matters 00:15:24
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Good.
You think the country's in better shape now than it was a week or so ago?
Well, I think people feel more optimistic.
Yeah, that's a good sign.
Good sign, but we have to make sure there's some follow-through on this.
But, you know, this morning I saw some news there that surprised me, and I'm not sure whether you had come across this or not.
But the news, whatever that means, it's the conventional news that we don't know.
But I haven't heard it from any source before I heard it this morning.
And that is there's a lot of seats in the House unsettled.
It's weird.
Like 40 seats.
It's incredible.
And it flashed back to memory when I had a contest in a congressional seat.
There's more room for mischief in these small little congressional seats.
You know, all the attention was security on the presidential race and the president.
But, you know, there was probably a lot of places where the political activity was more, and who knows.
But I do know that shenanigans can last for a long time.
So there's a lot of maneuvering going on.
I hope my suspicions are completely wrong because it may take days if there are 40 seats they're still arguing about.
But anyway, you would think that some rules changing, like not having these opportunities to string out the voting for days and weeks and months, there must be a better way.
But anyway, you know, we've had some talking about foreign policy, which and there's some suggestion that there's some good things happening.
At least if we can take some quotes, we've heard good quotes in the past by Vance and Trump.
Just ask him, and he'll have a good quote.
But the other thing that's been going on, at least in the last couple of days, the Democrats are still fighting among themselves.
And they're deciding that it's all Biden's fault.
They say, they did a measurement.
They say, Biden would have had more votes than Kamala.
That may be true.
But they didn't win any points by thinking all they have to do is accelerate their hatred toward Trump, and that'll be the campaign.
And all they have to do is put a Democrat out.
And Biden, Biden's been there for 30 years.
He wins all his elections.
So why worry about this?
But anyway, there's a few things to be settled yet.
But we spend a lot of time on economic policy and prosperity, but we also spend a lot of time on foreign policy.
And that's where you're the expert on foreign policy.
And now, right now, we have to sort it out because we're hearing some things.
And we know that they're not the most hawkish people in the world.
And it looks like one of the hawks might be set aside as being coming a defense chairman of the Defense Department.
So anyway, where do you think we're going on this on the foreign policy?
Is there any chance that, don't ask me because I tend to lean toward what we don't have, but there has to be a chance that the world could become more peaceful, but that's not easily said.
Yeah, I'll just comment on the House race thing.
I think that is a huge red flag.
I mean, there's no reason why there are 40 seats outstanding right now.
You should have them counted.
And I think you're right, it does open the door for mischief on a number of levels.
First of all, you have the euphoria among Republican voters that they won the presidency and they won the Senate with a more comfortable margin.
There's euphoria there, I think, is going to make people reticent to say, what about the House?
Now, probably a divided government is probably not the worst thing.
We've always said that.
But nevertheless, having the Senate is good for appointments.
It'll help Trump get his appointments through.
But losing the House could be a very big deal because you talk about all the economic policy and all these things.
It's pretty dangerous.
And there wasn't much talk about it.
There was no measurement during the covering of the voting.
There was a lot on the presidential seat.
I didn't even notice it until you brought it up this morning.
I mean, I did, but I sort of didn't process it.
That's why I hope it was just an isolated somebody postulating.
But that wouldn't be hard to define if there's undecided seats out there.
And if somebody came up with 40, it's probably a problem figuring this out.
And that, I'll tell you one thing, what it does, the people that have been involved, all the workers and all the special interests and all the candidates, anxiety liberals because, you know, when you have a tough race and you either win or lose and it's over, that's one thing.
But when it hangs in the balance like this, there's a lot of anxiety, but there's a lot of maneuvering going on there.
That's what I've seen in the past.
I don't remember who it was.
It was one of the pundits.
They said, well, Americans are just so spoiled they expect to have results right away.
Well, yeah, you know, is it that hard?
We always did used to have it, you know.
So this, I think they are conditioning people to these long-drawn out processes, which are very, very dangerous for every vote to count.
You know, and there were a lot of voters, how many more votes, tremendous amount of votes voting early and stringing it out.
And it is something else.
You know, the other thing that I'm probably the only one who has said much about this is the obsession on everybody has to vote.
And you heard it over and over again, but they always made the assumption, if they were a Democrat, that you're going to vote, but you're going to be voting for the right way.
But, you know, there's something about this, all of the people voting.
I've decided that the more authoritarian the government is, the more they want the vote to be closer to 100%.
So what would happen in the Soviet system?
Everybody voted in the vote.
99.5%.
Oh, yeah, we have free elections.
But, you know, why is not voting a vote?
They should count that as people not voting for a reason.
Have they ever done a poll on why people didn't vote?
And I think they're probably vulnerable and they're probably planning how am I going to survive the next term.
Well, you know what the Soviet Union did to encourage people to vote was that they gave away free beer and sausages at the polling place.
And actually, I monitored an election in Belarus in 2005, I guess, and it was the same thing.
Here's your voting boost and here's all the free beer.
Maybe if we try that, I mean, I may actually go back to voting if I get free beer and a sausage.
But anyway, so we want to look a little bit at a couple of things.
Now, there's a lot of negative.
There's people that we know and respect that are very negative about this coming administration.
And, you know, they may be right.
We don't know.
We're cautiously optimistic because otherwise we just wouldn't get out of bed.
So let's look at a couple of clips that two of these are from, I think, Trump's speech just in the last couple of days.
And one of them is from JD Vance of last year, but it's still a good clip.
And this, we'll sort of put these up and say, it seems like they have pretty good foreign policy instincts.
Let's put that first clip up.
I forget how much, 18 seconds or something, whatever I put down, that first video clip, if we can find that one and put that up.
There we go.
Oh, no, the first one.
That's the third one.
Yeah, that's the first one.
That's it.
Sorry.
Full screen that, and let's roll with this one and listen to what Trump said yesterday.
But we had no wars.
They said he will start a war.
I'm not going to start a war.
I'm going to stop wars.
But this is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
Together we're going to unlock America's glorious destiny.
We're going to achieve the most incredible future.
That's boilerplate Trump stuff.
We're going to be incredible.
Which is fine.
But the reason I didn't play longer even than that first thing is because if he does not start wars, if he does stop wars, that will help us have that glorious future that he talks about because that's where all the money is wasted.
So that's a good one.
Let's go to the second one.
This is kind of a different topic, but it also shows good instincts.
It's sort of classic Trump, the way he handles it.
But I think it also shows good instinct, good non-interventionist instinct here.
Let's full screen this and hear this first part.
It's kind of funny.
There's a bad word in there.
It's like I saw somebody, I won't even say because it's embarrassing.
We want it where the women over there don't have to wear the you know what.
And then I said, oh, well, that makes sense.
That's nice.
Then I saw women interviewed.
They said, we want to wear them.
We've worn them for a thousand years.
Why would anybody tell us not to?
They want to.
What the hell are we getting involved for?
In fact, it's easier.
This is a great bumper sticker.
What the blank are we getting involved?
Spontaneous defense of freedom.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
What are we getting involved for?
It's a good thing.
It becomes the choice became the issue, not what they were doing.
The whole thing is, is a society where there's choice, you don't have any right to do it.
And they're not harming you.
That's what freedom is all about.
What you're wearing.
What's our business?
No one's business.
Now, the third one is from last year, but it's a good clip from JD Vance.
And I like, especially when you see the rise of a lot of China hawks, and they're going to be flooding this administration, doing their best to get in, get their camel nose under the tent.
Let's listen to Vance on China.
He makes some very, very good points, I think, if we can find that third clip.
Here we go.
Let's listen to Vance.
We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don't want anything to do with it.
The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.
And I think that we should pursue a foreign policy, a diplomacy of respect and a foreign policy that is not rooted in moralizing.
It's rooted in the national interest of this country.
Because Ambassador Sullivan is a good idea.
That's good.
We can cut from there.
I love that sentence.
Oh, that's good.
It's great.
And it also goes along with another quote he made.
I don't know whether you have that one or not, but his mention about the Fed.
That was spontaneous.
And it was for the right reason.
So I think that there's reason to listen to those things and think that, well, if any terrible thing happens, he could be the president in four years or who knows when or sooner, unfortunately, if there's an accident again.
But anyway, I think it's great.
His speeches are great.
And you can be sure that he wasn't handed a piece of paper to read this thing.
So I think it's great.
Yeah, well, you know, Nixon had Kissinger as his Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.
So maybe make him, you know, the Secretary of State and the Vice President.
I don't know.
People will accuse us of being too Pollyanna-ish.
You know, we're being too positive, too optimistic.
And they're probably right.
You know, I'm by nature a pessimist, but you know, I think that we have to try to find some positive things and to try to encourage some positive things.
Remember the other day when we warned about neocons and Elon Musk made a comment.
He said, We don't want any neocons.
So I think just by trying, it's probably a good move.
Well, I was just going to mention the big thing, the big question that comes up is: can they rein in the hawks?
Yeah.
You know, because the hawks have, they're pretty quiet.
Hawks must not make a lot of noise, but they have a lot of clout.
They're very dangerous.
And fortunately, you know, more people are waking up to this.
But there has to be somebody that's going to resist.
And, you know, I don't know how it happened, but I think Cotton isn't going to be in the administration.
And that might be as a reflection of a generalized sentiment.
Who knows what's going to happen because that might be preliminary that we don't know what's going on.
But I think that we can see the good things and say, well, okay, it's in motion.
They'll take care of it.
We're moving in the right direction.
I don't think that's enough.
I think you have to know who's going to be most aggravated.
And, you know, that statement that Vance just made is very, very good.
But not everybody's going to, you know, there's a lot of people.
I imagine a country split 50-50 on that, on whether you should depend on diplomacy to talk to people and not be aggressive and tell them.
But you know where the conflict there is.
I don't want to suggest a problem.
But to follow what he just said, it's going to be a challenge when the issue of sanctions and tariffs come up, you know, to be in charge and say, you do this or else.
That'll be a challenge.
There's really a structural problem with people that are foreign policy people, especially in Washington, because they only talk to each other.
And so they all have the same views.
And that's why I've seen some speculation about what Trump's plan for Ukraine might be.
And if that is the plan, if that is what they're going to propose, it'll be a disaster and it won't work.
Because what he's proposing, and I don't know if he understands this, is Minsk 3.0, which is, let's just get them to freeze this conflict.
Russia's not going to do it.
It's not going to happen.
So the problem is everyone in D.C. is probably thinking, this is a great idea.
This is a great idea because there's no one, there's no skunk at the picnic to come in and say, that's a terrible idea.
Do you guys not know history, recent history?
This won't work.
And it's going to make Trump look bad.
He's going to propose something that Putin's going to say, no, it's not going to happen.
The really good suggestion has already passed the opportunity, and that was in 2014.
Exactly, exactly.
That is when all these seeds were planted and internationalism planted and the commitment to how many billions of dollars.
And nobody's even working with the idea.
They still send a lot of money, but it's just fanfare.
It's just to maybe quiet down the military-industrial complex for a day or two because we'll spend more money.
But, no, that was that's why that's the hardest thing to do in our job is try to point this out and say, well, then whose fault is it?
And I would say, well, the American people allowing their Congress to do these dumb things and spending their money and coughing it up when they want to steal it from you, they steal it through inflation and taxation, and we end up with these problems.
And then if anybody resists, then we have to, you know, really be tough on them.
Yeah, sanctions.
Well, here's you alluded to this earlier.
This is Axios that reported this yesterday.
I send it over to you in a jubilant mood.
Speculation On Next Hawk 00:09:03
Scoop, Tom Cotton won't join the Trump cabinet.
Go to the next one.
This is from the article.
Senator Tom Cotton has told President-elect Trump's team he will not be accepting administration roles despite being a top contender for positions including CIA, Secretary of Defense, two sources familiar, tell Axios.
I don't know why.
Maybe he feels like Trump is going to crash and burn.
Maybe he is so enamored with his own self that he doesn't want to tarnish himself by being in the administration.
Whatever the case, I think that is good news because he's a bad guy.
I mean, he's just a bad, bad guy.
Well, there's one other option, which is a mixed bag, and that is he had to leave because he lost support by the people in charge.
That could be it.
And that would be the best way, even though it sort of stimulates the friction.
But that's the type of friction we ought to work out before they're in office doing some more evil.
Maybe he was watching our show when we said no neocons.
He said, oh, gosh, I guess I won't be able to.
They didn't get my, they'll be calling up for their endorsements.
Yeah.
So here's another piece in Axios that talks about, speculates about what Trump's foreign policy team is going to look like.
And the thing is, speculation is spitballing at this point.
And I forget, it wasn't this fellow, Barik Ravid, who wrote this.
Someone else wrote that his choice of Rex Tillerson wasn't on anybody's scorecard at all.
It was out of the blue.
So this is pure speculation.
But let's look at a couple of these.
Go to the next one.
Now, I highlighted this, that Trump doesn't want former generals on his national security team, and he prefers businessmen and CEOs.
Remember last time he said, I need some generals, and he got them all and they stabbed him in the back.
He doesn't want them anymore.
He wants businessmen and CEOs, which is not a bad idea.
But he's also considering a lineup of loyalists.
He wants to fix the Ukraine-Russia war.
He wants peace in the Middle East.
Now, here's a couple of people that they bring up.
And these aren't new names if you watch the Liberty Report.
Richard Gurnell, former ambassador to Germany, definitely a hawk.
A huge China hawk.
I would say almost a neocon.
Not a good guy.
A lot of people like him.
Not a good guy.
Bill Haggerty from Tennessee.
I believe he's a serious China hawk.
And Robert O'Brien, who was a national security advisor at the end of Trump's term.
O'Brien is the guy that we've been told put the kibosh on our good friend Colonel McGregor's plan to get us out of Syria and Afghanistan.
So probably not a good guy.
And we'll just do one other one.
Now this is DOD.
If you do the next one, again, more speculation.
Pompeo, big speculation.
We'd love to see that quashed.
Michael Waltz, who is also a super, super hawk from Florida, being considered John Ratcliffe, the former National Director of National Intelligence.
Tom Cotton is mentioned, but he says, no, thanks.
Now, Brian Hook was Trump's Iran envoy, so he's the guy in charge of destroying our relationship with Iran.
I hope that he is not the person who will go to the State Department or DOD because he will get us into war with Iran.
So looking at these names that Barik Ravid, I think his name is, wrote in Axios, nothing here makes us jump for joy.
So hopefully he's completely wrong.
Yeah, and I think that's where the most dangerous spot to explode, even before the inauguration or right after the inauguration, and that has to do with the relationship of the Middle East, Israel, and Iran and what we're going to do.
And Trump is competent enough, and he does have some clout.
I don't think the leaders remain silent and ignore him, no matter what Biden said.
Oh, okay, we'll get rid of him.
Nobody believes Biden, and he doesn't do a good job.
We're going to put in a real tough one.
Kamala, she'll handle this bloodstream.
She'll bore them to death.
That'll do.
Or giggle them.
Yeah, giggle him to death.
Well, speaking of the Middle East, now, this is from Heretz.
It's a liberal Israeli newspaper.
We saw this this morning.
If you put it up, this next article, this, in your reaction, your first reaction was the best one.
I don't want to spill the beans, but you said, who's running things?
Who's in charge?
And this is from Horetz.
B-52 bombers, dozens of fighter jets.
As Israel braces for Iran attack, U.S. boosts Mid East forces.
So we've talked about this before.
We've got a good hundred troops or so in Israel.
We've got the FADS, but they're sending in more stuff.
B-52s, the Aero rocket system, and a few other things.
They're ramping up for a war there.
See, I think our foreign policy is in limbo.
It's not the predictable nonsense of the previous administration, whether it's the president or vice president.
But Trump's having more influence than probably them now, and he's not in office.
But it's in limbo, but if you were on the side that wants to do us harm, whether it's financial harm and move economic policy and go after our dollar and also militarily say, look, we're sick and tired of the sanctions.
This might be a time where they would, since they don't know exactly what happened, but we don't know exactly who's in charge either.
Because many times, you know, the individual that is leaving is more reliable than what we have right now.
You know, it's totally unpredictable.
There's so much inner fighting on the other side, not only between the Democrats and the Republicans, you know, exerting their hate toward Trump, but internally the Democrats have a big problem.
And so that's why I was wondering who's really in charge?
What if they do take a really big step where somebody has to make a decision?
And maybe Trump's approach would be the best, but he's not in charge.
There's a danger, like you said, no one has picked up the phone calling Biden.
He's yesterday's news.
So who is there?
And this may be the neocon feel like this is their last chance.
So it's a big danger.
You know what they might do, which would really complete, depend on the international organization.
Oh, we'll go to NATO.
We'll go to the United Nations.
They'll settle this.
And just stir up.
Well, I want to give you a couple of clips from this article.
Now, this is the next one.
These B-52s just arrived at Al-Udaid Air Base in Qatar.
If you can put that next clip up.
I mean, I'm not a military expert, but go ahead, Juan.
There we go.
These are six B-52s sitting at a U.S. airbase in Qatar, completely out in the open and vulnerable.
Now go to the next one.
They don't have a carrier group to protect them.
This is important.
The U.S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which was set to replace the USS Lincoln in the Middle East, is currently delayed in the drill, sorry, in the North Sea.
So they're in the North Sea.
The Lincoln is remaining, but they are about ready to leave.
So these basically B-52s are out in the open.
For anyone who's interested, put this next one up.
This is a map.
This shows you how close these six B-52s are.
You can see that little red dot, that red tag.
What you see on the right, that big, big country right next to it, that's Iran.
They're just a couple hundred miles from the Iranian border, an absolute sitting duck.
If the Iranians feel threatened, they could take those out pretty quick.
So the question is, what the heck is going on?
You know, it won't take much to close down some of those naval routes.
Oh, yeah.
And, you know, what what strikes me, you know, over many, many years, they've building more bombers and things and technology.
They like to play around with these weapons and all.
But they're still, these surface naval vessels and the airplanes they put out on an out-of-airport as if one bomb can take out, if they can target and murder, assassinate people, one person, you'd think they would be able to take those planes out in no time.
So it's almost like a temptation, you know, okay, maybe they'll do that, that'll be our excuse, and the Hawks are all ready to go and rearing to go.
The Hawks right now in this country might even welcome something like that.
But because traditionally, unfortunately and tragically, they actually, you know, either set the stage for that, but they don't worry about escalation if it's going to help the cause and help our road to peace.
Their road to peace is by conquering what they think is their enemy.
Cannot Take Advantage of Others 00:04:08
Yeah.
Exactly.
I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul, by doing a shout out to our colleague Chris.
Put up that last clip.
Chris wrote a great article, and he put it up on your Twitter page today.
If you can put that last clip up, he called it Play the Long Game, President Trump.
And one of the reasons why we want to put this up is, look at that little name above yours.
Elon Musk reposted, reposted Chris's piece.
It's a great article.
I encourage everyone to go to TwitterX and read it on Long Paul's site.
But thanks to Elon Musk retweeting it, Chris, his article, if you go down to the bottom right, has been read by over a million people.
A million people have read it.
So that's just tremendous.
Congratulations for Chris, and a big thank you to Elon for continuing to amplify our voice on his platform.
A bonus for Chris, and he deserves it.
Absolutely.
You know, several years ago, and Musk's name was known, but not well known.
And we had two supporters come and visit us, but they happened to have business dealings with Musk, and they knew him very, very well.
And I can remember, I was fascinated when I heard, you know, about who this guy was.
He was rich and smart and doing all these kind of things.
So the two young men that came to see us because they were interested in our politics.
I asked him as they were leaving.
I said, you knew Musk.
I said, my question was, is he the real thing?
Do you remember that?
I do remember that.
We were having lunch with them.
And they gave me an answer, which they were absolutely right.
I thought maybe this was a fanfare.
It's going to pass.
And people pop up and then they disappear.
And they said that's not going to happen.
He's the real thing.
We were both surprised because I felt the same way.
He's kind of, maybe he's kind of a goofy character.
They got very serious and said, no, we deal with him in business.
He's the real deal.
So he's what he seems so anxious.
And that's exactly what we're looking for, the real deals, the real deals that people know and understand and understand that what we're doing is based on a basic principle of individual liberty and personal rights.
This makes all the difference in the world.
I just have to get people to reject this whole notion of collective rights.
It is constant, total.
What group do you belong to?
What lobby group do you belong to?
What race are you?
What's your sexual orientation?
All that is baloney.
And the only thing that counts is individuals have rights.
They have a right to their life and their liberty.
And they ought to have a right to their pursuit of happiness.
But they have one rule.
You cannot take advantage of other people.
You can't hurt people.
The government can't favor you over others.
And if the government gets involved, they can't provide special benefits for groups.
They said they have a group right, and they can't provide a penalty and enslave certain groups.
Well, right now, today, certain groups are being enslaved and punished.
Right now, I think the middle class aren't aware of it, but they're being enslaved because percentage-wise they have to pay the biggest tax because all we have to do is print the money and the money, the little bit of money they can save, which is small compared to the upper-income people.
It dilutes the value of their dollar, and that's why they can't pay for their groceries.
So I think it's very important that we think about rights, and that is the principle.
The founders understood that they did their very best to protect the rights of the individual and steer away from this group orientation.
But it'll be a constant battle because that's happened for thousands of years of trying to decide the group versus an individual.
And it's natural to have a desire for individual liberty.
And it's also natural to look toward some good common sense and a moral sense of a natural law.
And a lot of people haven't said, well, what's this natural law?
Well, there are some rules that are natural and been around for all of history and tells us that even without government, people are instructed on how to live with other people without initiating force and violence and killing against each other.
Export Selection