All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
32:09
Do We Need 'The America Party'

Rumors continue to swirl around Elon Musk's threat/promise to found a new political party in the United States after the passage of the enormously destructive "Big Beautiful Bill." Do we need a viable third party? What should it look like?

|

Time Text
FEMA's Role in Disasters 00:04:35
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.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
You know, we've had a flood here now and then.
We've had some pretty big ones.
But boy, that is some flood to have in central Texas.
Terrible.
I used to live in San Antonio for a while.
I've been to Kerville.
It's a beautiful place, but somebody misjudged.
And I don't know whose fault it was that there wasn't any warning, and maybe it was impossible to know because it was pretty freakish about it.
But one thing is, is government is involved now, and somebody's going to announce what to be done.
But it is such a horror, you know, to think that it all really started without warning.
One in the morning, and a couple hours it was flooding by a wall of water rushing through there.
So it has to be devastating.
And when you just think of the people that died in there, how devastating it was.
The kids in a camp, you know, what a mess.
But there's always somebody, though, that comes up with an answer.
And there was somebody on the liberal side was saying, well, we need to have, you know, FEMA do a better job.
You know, when we were working in Congress, we had some experience.
You took some phone calls from people from Texas because we had some floods.
And, of course, I had a position where FEMA wasn't the answer.
And there was some challenge to that.
But after a while, they found out that I wanted to work around and solve some of the problems FEMA created.
And all of a sudden, it was never held against me for political reasons for that particular vote.
So it is an important issue, but it boils down to who's responsible for our safety.
And I think my guess is probably 90% of the American people say, well, it's the government's responsibility.
But it turns out that it doesn't work that way compared to what it's like in a free society.
And if anything, they should learn is that they have to deal with this.
And to solve the problem of FETA, floods and winds and all this, they have to realize that if you use the principle of insurance, insurance is a great free market principle because there was a time when people wouldn't put up their houses on the beach, like it's not too far from here, because the wind would blow away.
So the government gives them insurance, encouraged them to it.
Remember the cases we would deal with once in a while?
We'd find out that some areas of the Houston area was bailed out several times because of the insurance.
Anyway, it's the principle of insurance that would go a long way to solving some of these problems.
But nevertheless, this thing was devastating.
But we did have a couple examples where private sources tried their best to compensate for the problem they were dealing with.
Yeah, and there's a lot of people that want to make political hay out of the tragedy, and that's a second tragedy because there's just no way around it.
It's an absolutely devastating situation.
These poor little kids, four in the morning out camping, and they get washed away.
But you're right.
I mean, there are individuals who, acting on their own, made a difference.
One of them is a gentleman called Dick Eastland.
He was the director of the Camp Mystic.
And he, when the flood came, at least according to the media reports, he's a 70-year-old man.
He was out there working to save these kids.
He actually died, saving these kids.
And another one is a little closer to home, and that's our great friend, Gary Haven, who's on the board of the Ron Paul Institute.
I got an email from Gary this morning, and I knew this was true.
I didn't even have to ask.
He sent me an email of a couple of pictures and a short video that we're going to play of him.
When this tragedy happened, he got in his helicopter and immediately started searching for people, trying to help them, as he did in North Carolina when they had the floods recently.
So let's just watch this 11-second video just to get an idea.
Here's Gary Haven up in his copter trying to save people.
We didn't wait for a government mandate.
He didn't wait for FEMA.
He just got in his chopper and started helping and saving people.
Great Man's Independence Poll 00:03:25
And I haven't talked to him since he sent this.
My guess is he's probably found and saved some people.
That's right.
Great man.
Great man.
But when the principle of safety is given to the government, the people do less for themselves.
And then the blame always goes to the politicians and the government rather than saying, well, in the old days when they never even heard of government flooding and windstorm insurance, they just assumed, well, we better not build here again or we better take some of this responsibility on ourselves.
But even this, no matter how you might downplay this, there's no way of doing it.
This was an absolutely outrageous storm that did this.
And it was so fast that I'm not so sure.
The private sector, I always argue, can do better than the government, but this one was so overwhelming that I don't think anybody could have had a perfect prediction on this one.
Yeah, yeah, terrible.
So I guess we want to move on to kind of the big story of the day.
Is it a story or is it not a story?
I don't know.
But you know, when Elon Musk became vocal about the big, beautiful bill or the one big, beautiful bill, however you want to call it, of course, that was his break with Trump.
That's when he couldn't, he just couldn't hold his tongue any longer.
And he said, this is a disaster.
It's a nightmare for the country.
Well, what he did after that is he said, if this bill passes, the very next day I will start a new political party in the United States because we can't keep doing this.
Well, that didn't exactly happen because the bill was signed on Friday, the 4th of July, and he didn't found a party on Saturday.
There were some rumors, there was some false information posted on X.
But he did take a poll.
Now, if you put that first clip up, he took a poll the very next day, and he said, Independence Day is a perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party, some would say, uniparty system.
Should we create the America Party?
And he put up a poll, and then he replied, by a factor of two to one, you want a new political party, and you shall have it.
When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.
Today, the American Party is formed to give you back your freedom.
Now, there are some problems with that.
The word democracy is a problem because that's how we got into the mess that we're in.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
But nevertheless, what do you make of this?
How do you feel about this third party if it's going to be formed?
I'd say, forget it.
Unless it's for discussion purposes.
But I've never had much support and enthusiasm for the two-party system because when that would come up at a rally, they say, Are you for a third party?
And they knew I was always interested in doing something alternative.
I said, Well, I'm still waiting for the second party because it's a uniparty.
And when you look at the big issues, even now, how the whole thing unfolded on this budget and how the strongest, most vocal members that were opposed to this bill all of a sudden crumbled.
And, you know, the prevailing excuse is what got to me.
Why The Two-Party System Fails 00:15:24
This was the explaining, how did you do this?
Yeah, why did you change your mind?
Well, we talked to the president.
The president promised us he knew how to fix it and he could do it through executive orders.
And I think so much, you know, he's like, you know, maybe he could do something, but the whole idea that you can buy a vote that way.
And the one thing is, is the president is not a bashful person.
He's not bashful in using, you know, the powers that he has acquired by being president.
But there's also some powers there that he would like to have.
And the principle of executive order, he didn't invent that, but he's responded to it.
And so therefore, it's easy for me to say, well, if ABC was created by an executive order, it's an evil monster.
It's unconstitutional.
I don't feel, I wouldn't lose sleep over the fact if somebody uses an executive order to cancel out a bad executive order.
But I don't know the technicalities on how the constitutionalists would come back.
But it makes no sense.
What other way do you have to do it?
Send it through the court system.
And then you have all the liberal justices strengthening the efforts to get more government involved.
But I think thinking about it, you and I talked about, I wonder what we'd put into a constitution.
And my suggestion is, why don't we look at the history a little bit?
Because there was a lot of documentation about the Constitution and the debate that went on.
And I think that I marvel at how well educated they were.
It wasn't like they were just a band of independent people and independent thinkers that was off on a wild idea.
I mean, they went back hundreds of years of history, back to Greek times and Roman times, and they knew the history biblically.
They understood what it was all about.
They understood natural law.
And I think that's a good place to start.
But there are not too many.
It's not too hard to find some principles that you could follow that you could say, well, let's say if you wanted to do with the money issue, maybe we should say, well, Congress has no right to make anything other than gold and silver money.
Well, that's there, right?
But looking at that, but curtailing power would be the big challenge there.
And that's why, you know, even though it sounded many, many years ago when they talked about a constitutional convention, which could be legal, I thought, wouldn't that be neat if you could be on a convention like that?
And yet the whole thing is, is most people, including myself, have come to the conclusion, who's going to pick the people to go to this convention in this day and age?
And it would probably be the professor from Harvard University or something.
Well, you sent over the weekend a link to an article that Politico ran inside the Freedom Caucus's final surrender.
And that pretty much says it all.
They surrendered on the bill.
And you pointed out that, well, we talked to the president.
And he assured us, that reminds me of our good friend Jimmy Duncan, Representative John Duncan, who's on our board, when they were trying to get him into voting for the Iraq war.
They gave him a dog and pony show, a secret briefing.
And he was a pack of lies, and he knew it was a pack of lies.
It just cemented his opposition.
He understood then that they lie to you all the time.
Of course, President Trump is lying to the Freedom Caucus members.
So they really should.
They should just end the Freedom Caucus because there's no such thing.
It's bad window dressing.
You know, Jimmy was good because his approach was similar to ours.
His conclusions were very similar.
He's on our board.
And we voted together so often.
But, you know, it's one of those things that his approach was sort of, he emphasized, you know, tradition of the Constitution a little bit more.
And we would talk in libertarian terms of violence and use of force.
But they come together because the Constitution is very libertarian.
But he knew his history and he knew the Constitution.
So he's speaking out more now than he has for a couple of years.
So I'm delighted that we're getting to get more messages from him.
Yeah.
I'd be ashamed if I had to face my constituents and say that I'm in the Freedom Caucus.
Because if they had voted against this bill, it would not have passed.
They had all the power to block the bill.
Well, who has the best record for voting in the Congress for freedom?
Thomas Messi.
They don't have him in this caucus.
They don't want him in the Congress.
They probably don't want him, and he probably doesn't want it either.
Because it would be just fussing over not even the details.
How do you get away with doing this?
And they end up mixed in this.
The president promised this, but it's also one of these practical things.
So often they would tell me, well, yeah, it's good.
I agree with you on this.
But you have to give in.
And I keep thinking about this giving in stuff.
And I thought, well, what if you have a bad policy or a good policy?
And it's a million dollars for it.
But it's not perfect for the liberals.
They want more.
So let's say they diluted out and cut off 5%, which is generally due.
There'll be a lot of decent sounding bills.
This always sounds good.
What if they cut off 5%?
Well, yeah, it's only 5%.
It's no big deal.
You can sacrifice a little bit of liberty.
But what about 5% every year?
Pretty soon you don't have much left.
And I think that's why we're here.
And there's the frustration because the compromise and this whole idea that you can auction off your own liberty and cave in on the Constitution.
That's how the monetary system did it.
They didn't one day say we were going to have a national debt of now it's approaching $40 trillion.
But they did it gradually.
And we've talked about this so often on how they went.
Some were very observant.
They knew it in 1913.
They said this will finally destroy the sound currency system by doing this.
And the whole idea, Jefferson argued that you shouldn't borrow, the government shouldn't be able to borrow.
What are going to be the limits?
Oh, we're only going to borrow such a percentage.
Yeah, it's Thomas.
Then it gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Bigger and bigger.
Only $1 billion a year.
Now what is a trillion dollars a day?
Well, Elon Musk has said that he hasn't started the party.
There was some fake stuff out there.
The next clip, if you can put it up, Wall Street responds to America Party.
Musk denies calling the party filing fake news.
There was a document that was going around X yesterday that was fake news about it, according to Elon Musk.
But should, you know, should there be a second party is the question.
One of the interesting things is that, well, two things.
First of all, apparently the board members of Tesla and Wall Street investors view it very negatively.
It looks like the stock really, at least according to the Zero Henge article, took a real hit.
So they don't want this to happen.
Obviously, Trump's Republicans do not want this to happen.
And if you peruse X, as I did over the weekend and this morning, a lot of the commentary about Musk's America Party, frankly, and I don't use this word very often, is racist.
They show a lot of Indians.
It's going to be a lot of Indian workers in, a lot of foreigners in.
And it's kind of strange what they're using.
But I think it obviously looks like that they're spooked by this proposal.
You know, the process even on what the Republicans did to themselves is they were probably listening to my theory about how you work your way out of it.
Totally pessimistic that they will do it and work their way out of it and cut in a more dignified manner and maybe cut warmongering out first.
What did they do?
What's the biggest argument?
It was government medical care.
Oh yeah, they did such a great job on COVID.
Why don't we expand their power?
But they go and the conditions said, so they went and they did cut that.
But that's not going to solve that problem either.
But that was done for political reasons.
Cut medical care.
But they didn't cut militarism.
They didn't cut, what is up to a trillion dollars now for a budget for the militarism one year.
And there's a threat of sanctions, use sanctions, and then tariffs.
Do it our way or we'll put tariffs on.
The whole thing.
So that's a long way from a constitution that is similar to the one we have now, which was to protect a Republican form of government and was to reject an authoritarian government.
Yeah, I mean, I think there is a history in our country of a third party being able to galvanize people who are upset and sick of things.
And back when I voted, which is a long time ago, I would, pardon me, I would usually in our local elections vote for the Libertarian candidate just as a show of defiance to the two parties.
So there's obviously that.
Remember, Pat Buchanan ran in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket that Ross Perot himself founded.
I think it was in 92.
And he was a significant factor in the 92 election with the Reform Party.
And if you remember, his slogan was this great sucking sound of jobs being sucked away overseas.
You know, in a way, he was right.
He was right.
And that's kind of what we're facing now with President Trump.
The results of what Ross Perot warned about all those years ago when he started his Reform Party.
You know, this whole idea of they're more practical.
We're not practical.
We may be right, but it's impractical to do these things.
I would say this compromise and, you know, the people that were, they gave great speeches against what the Senate did to the House bill, and then they go and vote for it.
So their practicality, I think the whole thing is going to backfire on them because all this stuff backfires on them just like when the Democrats and liberals went after Trump.
We'll punish him.
We'll impeach this guy.
This guy's so bad.
What do you think?
It ends up backfiring on him.
It's a badge of honor in a way.
So this is what they're doing here.
Some people, you know, the ones that didn't cave in, and, you know, there's some people who didn't cave in, and they're getting more heat than they usually get for voting no on this stuff.
But they're always voting, you've got to emphasize what they voted for.
They're voting for a Republican form of government and liberated government.
They're voting for personal liberty.
That's what the country was supposed to be all about.
Yeah.
Well, someone who is upset about the possibility of a third party is none other than President Trump.
Now put this next one up.
I'm not going to read it all because yet another very lengthy truth social post.
President Trump has got a problem with this, but that's up for someone else to deal with.
But he said, I'm saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely off the rails, essentially becoming a train wreck over the past five weeks.
He even wants to start a third party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States.
The system seems not designed for them.
Ironically, he's actually the president of a third party that was a third party back, and leave that up, please.
Was a third party back in the 1800s.
The one thing good third parties are good for is a creation of complete and total disruption and chaos.
And we have enough of that with the radical left Democrats who have lost their confidence and their minds.
And I'll go to the next.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
It's just, he blames the whole thing on Musk being mad about the loss of electric subsidies, which he then goes on to contradict himself.
He said, when Elon gave me his total and unquestioned endorsement, I asked him whether or not he knew I was going to terminate the EV mandate.
It was in every speech I made, in every conversation I had.
He said he had no problems with that.
I would just say, so why are you mentioning it?
But anyway, he said, Elon, additionally, this is the interesting and kind of weird part.
Additionally, Elon asked that one of his close friends run NASA.
Well, I thought the friend was very good.
I was surprised to learn he was a blue-blooded Democrat who never contributed to a Republican before.
I guess that's what it takes to be named to a position, Dr. Paul.
Anyway, Elon probably was also.
Okay.
Leave it up, please.
Yeah.
I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was also in the space business, run NASA when NASA is such a big part of Elon's corporate life.
My number one charge is to protect the American public.
So that was a little bit of his rant.
He's not happy about the possibility of a third party because the fact is, Dr. Paul, if you elect one or two members in the House right now, you are an enormously powerful party because the two parties are so close in number in the House and the Senate both.
You know, the whole idea of trying to formulate a Republican type of government, not a Republican Party government, a republic versus a democracy or an authoritarian state.
And I don't think there's the answer is a political party.
I think I'm all for it.
I even worked in to encourage it, to encourage competition against that single party there.
But, you know, what really is important is the general attitude of the people, and you have to change it.
The general attitude of the people to be totally complacent about COVID until they found out what COVID was doing to their friends and neighbors and how many people were dying from it, then their attitudes changed.
Well, I think that's the way it is in politics, is that, you know, the educational system contributes to a prevailing attitude, and that certainly is a big issue since the progressive era.
The cultural attitude of people about whether they're responsible or not to be independent-minded and deal with their own problems.
The morality of a society.
And the founders talked about these things.
People Already Suffering 00:05:12
And the famous statement, yeah, we're going to give you a republic, I think, Franklin said, if you can keep it.
And right now, I would say it's on its last legs if we don't do something about it.
So this is an opportunity.
Really, maybe people should give some serious thought about it.
But I think the most serious thought is the people who didn't cave in.
And the Democrats, we're going to get you.
You didn't cave in.
You didn't declare a vote for freedom.
So we're going to get you out of here.
But, you know, to reverse the prevailing opinion of the people, it is not easy, but it becomes easier when things break down.
And that's what's happening right now: is the predictable event of the rich getting richer and the poorer the poorer is we're in the middle of that.
That's not coming later.
It's already there, and it's going to get much worse.
And that's when there's going to be a lot more violence.
You used a key word just now.
You said morality.
And that's what's missing.
You know, every president gets elected.
It was the true, as we've said with George W. Bush, with Barack Obama, with Trump both times, especially this time.
They promised a humble foreign policy.
They promised a peace president.
They promised not to spend beyond our means.
And then they get into power and do the opposite.
And that's always the case.
And I'm thinking, if there is an America party, hey, I'm game for it.
I'll help do your foreign policy.
But I was thinking about what would it look like?
Well, it would kind of look like the Ron Paul presidential run and the Fed, no foreign entanglements, no foreign aid, get off people's backs, reduce government as much as possible.
And it's kind of already done.
It's already there.
I mean, the Libertarian Party claims to be that.
So I don't know what more it could be.
But I do know one thing, though.
This is from Town Hall.
If you go to that next clip, I know what it should not be.
And it says the idea of such a third party has been trending on X through Saturday with America Party and Ross Perot, who ran unsuccessfully as an independent in the 92 presidential election and still only earned 19%.
Now, I wouldn't say only earned that.
19% was significant.
Anyway, despite being considered one of the most successful third-party candidates in U.S. president history, Mike Pence has also been trending for rumors of involvement.
If Mike Pence is part of the America Party, America does not need the America Party.
That's a good negative.
Yeah, that's a negative.
So if the neocons jump into this party as a way to hurt Trump, because a lot of the neocons hate Trump, even though he does a lot of their bidding, if the neocons, like Bill Crystal, they jump into this project, it is DOA, toxic.
You know, sometimes they want to make this very complicated, even what we've been talking about here.
People say, ah, that's a lot of mishbash you guys are talking about.
But there are some things that are very simple, you know, that everybody should understand.
One that I like to repeat is the principle that if you and I can't steal from our neighbor, why are we allowed to send our government to steal from our neighbor so that they can give us what they stole us?
They're always working on stolen money.
And then they have to include you steal money through the silent tax and the ruthless tax, but it's hidden tax, and that's the inflation tax.
And the people do suffer from that.
And yet the people don't quite put it all together because the immediate thing is, what am I going to get out of it?
But the one thing they have not taken into consideration, but there's more talk of it now, is a year ago was at a point, you know, the interest on the national debt, we spend more on that, which isn't spending it on anything.
It's throwaway money.
It's just to manipulate the empire.
It's to feed it into the empire.
So the interest payment, and that's going up exponentially.
I'll bet you today the interest payments by our government was higher than yesterday.
And I bet you in a year from now, there will be no signs of a frugal government invading our country.
And the interest rates are going to be higher than ever.
And you don't even have to legislate that.
You don't have to have an executive order.
You just keep spending the money and sending out the bills, the treasury bills and the bonds.
And they accumulate, but the burden keeps growing.
So the people are already suffering from that.
So it wouldn't be that hard to convince people what to do.
And another simple rule they could have is that why shouldn't people say, wouldn't it be nice if everything that we do in this country between two people, two sexes, or whatever they want, or two businesses between a salesperson and a customer, why shouldn't everything be voluntary onto two sides?
Everything Voluntary 00:03:30
That sounds like a good idea.
We still have a lot of that.
Because it's getting messier because sometimes once you get a monopoly providing the services, so it gets more and more difficult to have perfect choice in medicine now.
You know, you might not have as many choices that there was at one time.
So it's something that people should have.
If we emphasize that, everything should be voluntary.
That sounds good to me.
That's why some people go to remote areas and they might have maybe a couple hundred people living together with some rules like that.
And they do quite well.
But everything is voluntary, and then they even help each other.
They don't have to call the government.
It's a community and they help and it's a more moral society.
But we've drifted a long way from that.
Well, you remember Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who actually will be speaking at our conference, what he said last time.
He said it's entirely possible to have anarchy at the state level, but communism at your local level.
Communism, as you just said, a voluntary society where everyone agrees to help each other out.
And that is the interesting contradiction, perhaps.
But I'll tell you what, Dr. Paul, what the America Party looks like, if you go to that next clip, that last clip, what we're going to be talking about is the America Party, the Blueprint for Peace, on August 16th, 2025.
And I'll tell you what, Dr. Paul, if Mr. Musk would like to have a microphone, he is more than welcome to join us on that day and give a talk about the America Party or where he thinks the country should go.
We'd be honored to have him, just like we're honored to have all the speakers that are going to be showing up and get your tickets.
Join the America Party, the Blueprint for Peace, on August 16th in Dulles, Virginia.
Very good.
You know, there's so many items that we can talk about to emphasize how we should do it.
Where do we start?
And I'm going to just suggest the one that I work on constantly.
It's been around.
I do it more now.
And it wasn't a result of the fact I was not pro-war when I was drafted.
That was a learning experience, but it wasn't as strong.
The position I hold on that wasn't as strong as it is now.
And that is, if we wanted to do one thing that you could fix it and you could do it in a day, I think it would be a real blessing.
And that is that we avoid and extricate ourselves from any war that we're participating in, directly or indirectly, around the world, which would mean, of course, closing down our empire.
So that to me would be, and people, the other thing, you wouldn't have to change the rules, just live up to the Constitution.
You can't have a war.
But you heard an individual explain to me that I was all wrong because that part of the Constitution, we don't follow that part of the Constitution anymore about declaration of war.
So that's a way I think is a start.
I think, you know, politically speaking and practically speaking, that more people would go along with cutting out all the wars rather than taking food stamps away from kids.
But the whole thing is, the whole society has to change.
The educational system has to change, as well as the moral standard and the cultural climate that we have.
And believe me, our problems would disappear.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection