All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:16
California Riots: Color Revolution? Psy-Op?

The riots and chaos in California ostensibly over round-ups of illegal immigrants have taken on a particularly "color revolution" feel, completely with the Mexican flag as a symbol. Is there more than meets the eye...and who benefits?

|

Time Text
National Guard Chaos Theory 00:14:55
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 this Monday?
Good.
Have you heard anything about a riot going on?
Not in Lake Jackson.
Not in Lake Jackson, thankfully.
Not even in Clute.
But it looks like there's a little sorting out to do.
And there's several things that has confused me a little bit about authority and who are the morally good guys and who are the morally derelicts.
But anyway, it's important.
And if the people looked at the precious metals markets, they might say, well, maybe it has affected.
Gold was down.
Now it's popped up again.
But silver in the last week has been doing very well.
And people are thinking that finally the big bull market and silver was starting.
Who knows?
But both of the precious metals were up.
But there's reason for it to be up.
And sometimes I wake up in the morning and say, wow, how can this thing be so high?
And I said, well, that's what I've been thinking about all this time.
It's high because the government spends too much money.
The people want the money.
Too many people want to go to war.
There's too many lobbyists.
There's a military-industrial complex.
We have troops all around the world.
And guess what?
We have a deficit.
And I don't even think we know what the real deficit is, at least the financial obligation.
When you consider everything, you know, we talk about $36, $37 trillion of debt.
But I think that, Daniel, is actually smaller than the obligation when you look at all the obligations for all the pension funds and everything.
Anyway, the markets, I think, are not going to be calmed down with the type of activity both domestically now.
We talked a lot about Ukraine and the Middle East and the violence there.
But here we are witnessing, I imagine, still going on all weekend, rioting out in California, you know, and there and it's over, you know, policy and all.
The National Guard is in there, and the question is, were they sent in in a proper manner or is proper justification?
Well, there's a technicality that the president went through, went through, used the technicality that had been used once before.
I've never been a fan of the supremacy clause, but understand why that has to be constitutionally necessary on some occasion.
But I think the one thing that one rule that has been used in the past when the federal government would send in troops, they would at least coordinate it with the governor.
And that is a general rule written, but obviously is not absolute, you know.
But I think this type of rioting going on is a consequence of the ineptness of the state.
And that's a little bit different than the troops have invaded our country.
You know, under those circumstances, most people would realize that the president has to act.
But there's a lot of rioting going on out there.
And the whole thing has to do with the guard going in there without what people think is a proper thing to do.
But this struggle right now is building.
And that, I think, is going to continue.
And I think it's a reflection of our foreign policy, our domestic policy, our spending, and all kinds of reasons.
And of course, the radical left and Marxism.
I think this cultural Marxism that we talked about so much, you know, during COVID, they want chaos.
And when I see what's happening out in California right now, I say, does this mean that cultural Marxists are having, they're getting chaos.
And the only way I try to mellow that over is say, okay, they're having chaos.
They created it.
And they want to usher in radical socialism.
I say, why don't we usher in the age of a freedom that might have some linkage back to the freedom that our founders liked and what's in our Constitution.
So I may be just whistling Dixie or something like that, but we can't change the immediate past history.
But there's, I think we spend a lot of time, we know there's going to be a collapse of the monetary system, but we try to tell people there is a way to solve the problem, even though it's so difficult.
So I think we should always plan long term.
And I think that is an academic and an ideological thing that has to be done.
So there's a lot going on.
There's a competition between those who believe in liberty and those who are authoritarians.
You know, events like what's going on in California right now can be very frustrating for people like us because what it does is it enforces the team identity of Americans.
Americans are divided.
They treat politics as kind of a team sport where you are either team R or team D, your team MAGA or your team left or whatever you want to call it.
This kind of event really does divide people between those two groups.
So I kind of think what our role is to step back and try to look at what's happening beyond it because we're not going to cheerlead for one or the other.
We've recognized all the time on this show the problem of illegal immigration, which is more complicated than we're seeing now, but we certainly have recognized that problem.
The problem of using the National Guard perhaps in a way that's happening.
Also the problem of scooping people up off the streets and sending them out willy-nilly without any sort of understanding of if they're here illegally or any kind of hearing.
So nevertheless, one of the things that I think is interesting, Dr. Paul, about this, and hence the title that we have chosen for today, is the question of whether this is some sort of a color revolution.
And, you know, I think it has some of the hallmarks of it, including what struck me the most is the use of the flag of the country of Mexico.
That's a symbol.
We saw this in places like Belarus where they carried a certain type of flag.
You know, the orange revolution in Ukraine, where they had a color that they used.
You sort of have to have this kind of a symbol.
So I think that leads a lot of the people on the right, the MAGA types, to think that this is some sort of a Soros-inspired color revolution to undermine President Trump.
And I think there's probably some truth to that, but it doesn't give justice to the whole event that's happening.
You know, we've had controls on immigration the whole history of our country, and there are laws against it, and there's been abuses in the past.
But this last five years or so, or especially with the last administration, I mean, there was a policy that has to have been deliberate.
It wasn't that a few individuals came in by carelessness and a little lack of enforcement.
This was an invitation.
It was subsidized.
They were helped.
And the people who tried to enforce the laws, they were the ones who were the bad guys, so to speak.
But it promoted it.
And so the people might from the outside promote it.
There are people I'm sure that would do this, but it was internal.
It was the way These cities and towns and states would say, Come on in and we'll subsidize it.
They took money from working American citizens.
Then they went and subsidized, you know, the illegality.
And when you list all the fuss, this stirred up a lot of discomfort and distaste, you know, for immigrations out of proportion to why people shouldn't be just blanking.
All immigrants are bad immigrants.
But that's about what happens now.
And that's why when the enforcement comes, you know, if there's a million people who have immigrated and only half of them were illegal, how do you do it sorting out without offending somebody or making mistakes?
And you end up with a mess.
And there are some people who just, you know, are very happy with the mess they've created.
Yeah.
Well, let's look at a couple of clips.
Now, this is Zero Hedge.
They put out a story today.
Newsome sues Trump over National Guard deployment as media calls LA riots peaceful and that's sort of funny, obviously, because the cars are burning.
But Newsom has definitely jumped up and taken advantage of the chaos in the streets.
He said this is exactly what Donald Trump wanted.
He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard.
The order he signed doesn't apply to California.
If we allow him to go to any state and do the same thing, we'll be suing him.
Now go to the next one here is again Newsom taking advantage of the chaos.
And now go to the next one.
I just did a couple of random clips of what's going on in LA.
I would definitely not call that peaceful, Dr. Paul.
And I think it's funny that they do.
If you go to the next one, you can see the symbol of this If It Is a Color Revolution, the Mexican flag being held up as things are burning in the background.
Now, the thing I think we should ask in a situation like this where it's far from clear what's happening is who benefits?
You know, who benefits from what's happening here?
And the first I would throw out there, Dr. Paul, is I think Gavin Newsom benefits definitely because he has now established himself as the anti-Trump on the national stage.
He's the one standing up to Trump in the MAGA movement.
I think it propels him forward as the Democrats look for some sort of a figure that they can turn to to solidify their party that itself is in chaos.
So I think he's a big winner in this.
Yeah, I think the image has changed a bit just recently with the innocent immigrants coming in and being overly penalized.
And it's not like before this started, you know, there was a lot of sympathy for the people who say, hey, look, we have to stop this.
What we're doing is we're opening up the doors.
We're inviting illegal immigrants to come in.
A lot of bad people get in, and they actually dump the cost of this on the law-abiding citizen who stay at home and work.
So whether they're the hospitals or the schools or whatever, the taxes they have to pay, this costs a lot of money.
And a lot of people who had been, you know, very, very loyal, hardworking American citizens have to be had, they end up suffering from illegal immigration, especially if it's seated.
You don't have to have 100%.
You don't even have to have 50%.
You just have to have the organization, this illegal entrance, you know, to make a stand like this.
And all of a sudden, the demagogues win the battle.
And I think what you're pointing out is it looks like Newsom is in a position where he could benefit from this chaos.
Yeah, I think so.
The other group I think that benefits Dr. Paul is tech tyranny, I think we can call them, which is this sort of emerging big tech surveillance state that's a public-private partnership.
There's another word for it that we won't use.
And I would offer this as exhibit A.
Now, this is a well-known Republican MAGA quote-unquote influencer.
If you put that next clip up, her name is Laura Loomer, and she's very, very prominent in Trump circles.
Now, here's what she said: It's time to deploy Palantir to Los Angeles to deal with the illegals.
You know, you'd love to see it.
You're lying if you say you wouldn't.
To which a writer and homeschool advocate, Brett Pike wrote, Is it safe to assume anyone using the events in LA to call for a 1984-style surveillance state is a subversive agent?
And I think a lot of people would agree with that.
Now, Angelo Giuliano, he commented on Loomer's post.
If you put the next one up, with the following that I think it's kind of plays into what you said, Dr. Paul, about cultural Marxism, but it's actually Marxism-Marxism, as in the Hegelian dialectic.
He writes: California riots, the chaos strategy is in play.
One, manufacture the crisis, two, offer the solution, three, outcome, expanded police state, deploy a jean provocateur, use operatives to amplify demands for more cops, more surveillance, and more control.
I think that's a pretty good, pretty fair analysis, a pretty fair supposition for who's been going to benefit from this, the surveillance state.
You know, it's so often they do this when you run into a crisis, like when the Patriot Act was passed.
Yeah.
You know, pass the Patriot Act and everything will be all right.
And then all of a sudden we find, oh, it was already written.
We were just waiting for the opportunity.
And there's some of that that goes on because they plan the opportunities and they just wait for the opportunity to promote what they've been working on all along.
And I still am baffled by how are they motivating this?
They just say, well, I'm evil and I did it.
I'm just going to make the best of my evilness.
But they talk to themselves.
They actually believe, I think most of them, maybe I'm guessing, believe they're doing the Lord's work.
You know, many, so many that I met in Washington, they made the assumption that people are stupid.
They don't want to take care of themselves.
They won't work.
And they need us.
They need them to take care of them and make sure that nobody gets richer than they believe they should be.
And everybody has to be safe.
And the government turns into a system that everybody has to have perfect safety under this state control and give up all your liberties.
Well, I want to thank Conrell 2020, who kicked in 20 bucks for the show.
And he pointed this out before I said it.
We've got some pretty smart live viewers.
And I think he's getting it too.
Manipulating Public Opinion 00:11:08
He says, many may point to Soros and the left as the main suspects for the riots in LA, but they could be the scapegoats by those in power to create chaos to justify expansion of government power.
That seems like a pretty reasonable thing.
Let's go to the next clip because Giuliani, he was on fire this morning.
Angelo Giuliano, he's a Swiss-Italian citizen and analyst.
He made another good point who benefits from the chaos in LA, Trump, the PayPal Mafia Palantir.
With the chaos, people will demand more security.
Palantir will provide it, but with more control, more police state.
Create the problem and come up with the solution.
Don't be surprised to find a jean provocateur within the riots.
Those can be paid by the same that will later provide more security and more control.
Remember January 6th and all the FBI agents embedded within the protests.
This could be no different.
People are easily manipulated, he wrote.
They will vote for the one who created the problem.
They will vote for their enemy because people vote led by their emotions, not using their rational thinking.
I think he makes some pretty good points there.
Yeah.
You know, when chaos comes and the people are upset, say like under COVID, the people know there's something wrong.
But what carries the day is who's out in front with the propaganda.
And that's where the authoritarianism that they have.
You know, they control schools and movements and the medical system, and they were able to, you know, scare people to death.
And the people rolled over.
I mean, probably 90% of the people decided, well, we have to take the vaccine.
And they would actually turn the people who were at least saying something else.
They turned in to be the enemy.
But what they don't see is you don't have to have another authority ruling over the authority they don't like.
Why don't they just allow people, like in medicine, why don't we allow the people to make their own decision about their medical care rather than picking the authoritarian that say, oh, we know what's best for you.
And all of a sudden, after it's all over, it turns out it's not the best thing.
This whole thing that the government's going to make us safe is really a dangerous thing because you cannot be perfectly safe without giving up your freedom.
Yeah, cows are safe in a field grazing away.
The owners take care, well care of them, to be hauled off to the until the time comes for.
Well, I want to thank Downing Thomas.
He said, I will match Conral's donation, to which James Cabal kicked in $40.
And he quoted someone else on X saying, it's not currency that makes the world go around.
It's your personal data that makes a company money.
We need to push back on this.
No Patriot Act 2.0.
Our audience is definitely getting it.
And if you can actually go to the next one, because this is, I think, in the same who benefits category, I would add President Trump and the Congressional Republicans benefit from the riots.
And here's how.
This is Carolyn Levitt.
She is a spokesperson for the White House, for President Trump.
And here's what she had to say.
The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources.
America must reverse this invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country.
Now, here's the point.
That's why President Trump's one big, beautiful bill funds at least 1 million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officials, and 3,000 new border agents.
You've got to pass this big, beautiful bill if you don't like LA and California being turned into a war zone.
And someone else said it on X earlier.
Suddenly no one's really talking about all the spending in the big, beautiful bill anymore.
You know, they see the problem.
What we need is more money.
We need more authoritarianism.
But I think we need less of the subsidies because immigration, illegal immigration was actually subsidized.
If they could come in and the gates were open and they had to come in and carry in a satchel and go get a job and they got no financial support from a government.
So I think we should have had less subsidies and not say, well, we need more law enforcement.
But I believe in the law enforcement because I think the comparison ought all always be made to what it would be like thinking about our country and protecting our country as our homes.
Homes are sacred.
And, you know, we're supposed to be able in Texas, you know, you're supposed to be able to take care of problems.
Anybody bust into your house and shooting your kids.
That to me is, but if you see the country that way, who's responsible?
Well, it's the government, you know, to the point where if the tanks are lining up and they're moving in, that that's the case.
But that's not it.
This is where the government actually, especially people like Newsom, they encourage this stuff.
You know, it's just, well, I'm doing pretty well.
They're talking about me becoming the president.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, we'll keep an eye on it.
Maybe we should move on to our second one and do a quick one here because this is just something that jumped out, which is just a typical way that Congress handles things.
Now, there was some knucklehead, some evil person, knucklehead's not even strong enough, some evil person attacked some protesters in Colorado last week.
Apparently, he had anti-Semitic intent.
He threw some incendiary liquid, as far as I understand, and hurt some people.
Clearly, a bad guy who deserves serious punishment.
But of course, count on Congress to grandstand the issue.
A member of Congress introduced a resolution because apparently this guy, when he threw this, he yelled free Palestine when he attacked these people.
Okay.
So he introduced a resolution in the House labeling the slogan, Free Palestine, as an anti-Semitic slogan, obviously trying to prevent people from uttering that phrase.
So again, a Congress that cannot spend time doing appropriations bills like they're supposed to do has plenty of time for this kind of game playing.
Now, if you turn the next clip on, this is from Axios.
This is our good friend and colleague Norman Singleton sent this over.
Tensions erupt in Congress over a vote to condemn Boulder attack.
Now, of course, the House Republicans could have just put in a bill, Dr. Paul, saying the guy who did this is a really bad guy, and we hope he gets punished.
People should not be attacked for their political views.
Full stop.
Everyone would say that makes pretty much sense.
But what they did, if you put the next one on, is House Republicans tried to make political hay out of this.
As they write, what would otherwise be an uncontroversial congressional vote to denounce the Boulder attack is devolving into a contentious partisan feud.
Language praising ICE and labeling Free Palestine as an anti-Selemitic slogan are sparking fury from House Democrats.
It's forcing them to vote on things that if they can't support, will make them look like they don't care.
And in fact, they may, well, support anti-Semitic attacks, making politics out of what happened.
You know, I'm sure somewhere along the way, you could point out exactly the violation of some property and use of violence.
That can and should be addressed.
But what does he emphasize?
Speech.
Yeah.
Speech.
You know, did he ever play kids?
Kids play sticks and stones?
You know, it's the speech that they do this.
And that, you know, I think that backfires on them too, because, you know, statistics are starting to show that there's no balance.
Even in Israel now, there are more people thinking, you know, Israelis, they think that every single Israeli endorses what's happening to the Palestinians.
And that just isn't true.
It's not true.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, go to the next one now.
I mean, this is kind of, obviously, disgusting to try to make political hay on this.
State of play, if you go to the next one, 15 people and a dog were injured in the attack.
The suspect allegedly yelled Free Palestine as he threw Molotov cocktails.
Here he is.
Representative Gabe Evans, Republican of Colorado, with fellow Colorado Republicans, introduced a three-page resolution denouncing the attack, which is scheduled to be voted on next week.
Everything's fine so far.
But the major labels Free Palestine as, quote, an anti-Semitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people.
There's a little problem with this, Dr. Paul, which is that many of the groups who regularly employ that phrase, Free Palestine, happen to be Jewish groups themselves,
Jewish Voices for Peace, Code Pink, many of these other groups that are explicitly founded by Jewish people and who espouse the idea of free Palestine, finding themselves being condemned by their own Congress as anti-Semites who want to destroy Jewish people, i.e. themselves.
So in trying to gain political points off of this tragedy, they're actually committing sort of an anti-Semitic act themselves in Congress.
That's why it's important to identify the difference between the use of violence, and you can address that, versus this use of speech.
You shouldn't forget one and deal with only the speech part, but believe in that is the big problem.
Politically speaking, that might be their big problem that they have to deal with.
But unfortunately, this thing has gotten out of hand.
And it wasn't so much mentioned in what was happening in California.
But this is a smoldering thing that's going on.
And there's still a lot of demonstrations that are occurring.
I'm surprised at how many demonstrations are.
But I think the campuses, they're totally mixed up too.
And then we have the president and the government coming in and regulating all immigration.
I think there is a way when you find that 50 or 60% of the people are subsidized by our government to come in and get into our colleges.
Well, the answer to that is have a private college.
Inflation and Congressional Pay 00:03:11
And then you would have the right to, we have a right with my home schooling to pick and choose.
Anybody who wants to study comes.
That's the only qualification.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, I'm going to close out by thanking our viewers.
Our tickets to our August 16th DC conference will go on sale later today.
If you are subscribed to updates from RPI, you will get it in your inbox, all the information about the conference.
I was hoping to have it up by now, but I needed to do a couple bits of more tweaking.
If you're not subscribed, just go to ronpaulinstitute.org and subscribe to our updates.
We don't bombard you.
And of course, we never, unlike Palantir, we never give out your personal information.
So that's going to be fun.
It'll go out this afternoon to all of you subscribers.
And of course, I'll have something tomorrow for you.
Dr. Paul.
I'm going to close with a brief comment on a slightly different subject.
And this has to do with Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee from Utah, friend of Rand's.
And he's a good guy.
I've known him.
I've met him.
And he has a suggestion.
And it's very interesting.
And it reminds me of a somewhat similar type of proposal a long time ago in the 70s.
But Mike has a proposal to deal with all this spending and all this stuff going on.
He's proposed a constitutional amendment.
You're allowed to do that.
That would make all members of Congress ineligible to run for re-election whenever inflation exceeds 3%.
That would make a big change, wouldn't it?
Because they know it's only 2.9%.
It never goes to 3%.
Or when the deficit exceeds 3% of gross domestic product.
So, well, I didn't ask Mike, but I don't want to put a needle into his balloon, burst his balloon.
It ain't going to happen, for sure.
But it was similar to what I did in the 1970s because inflation was much worse than it is now, and interest rates were 21%.
So I introduced an amendment that said that the people that if there's an inflation rate of 9%, the pay raise for all members of Congress would go down 9%.
Instead, we always try to have cost increases and it's automatic.
You inflate it, so you try to adjust it and increase the benefit.
But that didn't happen.
But I think it's an interesting point of just talking about that.
But the only thing that's going to stop it is if you get rid of the appetite for government and seeking this failed notion that you want government to make us all safe forever and depend on somebody else.
Because all those people who've gone to Washington, they are so smart and so rich.
I'm sure they'll take care of all of us.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection