All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 20, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
27:48
Paging James Madison!

Judge Andrew Napolitano has a new article out explaining what happened to the Madisonian system that created such freedom and wealth for the United States. Where did we go wrong? Hint: Wilson. Also today, Texas Governor Abbott declares Muslim rights group to be a "foreign terrorist organization."

|

Time Text
Talking About Constitutional Liberties 00:14:05
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 morning?
Very well, thank you.
I'm going to start off with a little different approach today, a little bit of history, a little bit of understanding of the Constitution, which we need a little bit more of that.
I was thinking about the subject we're going to be talking about.
You know, I've never heard some of this.
And I was in grade school and high school.
I was in 12 years of government schools, and I never heard these things.
They're talking about the Constitution.
But, you know, when I started looking around the internet today, I came across, you know, Lou Rockwell's site.
And I like that.
And he frequently quotes me.
He's very generous.
And he had a quote up there.
And I said, oh, Lou's quoting me up here.
And I thought, that's awfully nice, but he never mentioned it to me or anything.
So I went and, oh, I looked at it and said, it's a good quote.
And I agree with him, but I didn't do it.
I wonder where this came from.
Oh, I know.
Andrew Napolitano probably said it.
So I checked into that because Napolitano and I, you know, we agree with just about everything there is, certainly on the Constitution.
And I thought, well, that's good.
It's not my quote, but it's Napolitano's.
So then I decided by the time I started reading, then I became more enlightened about what was going on because I read the detail of the quote that was highlighted.
And this video says, the means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Yes.
Boy, I sure agree with that.
But Napolitano didn't say it.
He said, well, he took his quote for a young guy, you know, way back, the beginning of our country, a person by the name of James Madison.
He knew something about the Constitution.
So it's here now, but he, but Andrew does a great job on, you know, explaining the Constitution.
And he does this on this case.
But the subject that he's talking about is just down our alley.
You know, where do the liberties come from?
We talk about the monetary system, everything that happens as an excuse in the foreign policy.
And how does it affect our freedoms here at home?
At one point in the article, and we'll go over this article in more detail, is Andrew makes the point that as well as Madison, that once you lose your liberties, they were pretty strong.
You never get them back.
Well, I always say they're bad.
You can't get back under the current situation, but it'll get back after you do some whitewashing, getting rid of this stuff that we have.
Then we can start talking about what the Constitution means.
But I think you got a chance to take a look at this.
And I imagine you don't have too many complaints with our friend Andrew.
Not at all.
In fact, we put it up on the Ron Paul Institute website, ronpaulinstitute.org.
Judge Napolitano is his weekly column.
And of course, they're always great.
It's always great reading.
There's always a lesson in there to either be learned or to be relearned.
And it's very important.
But this one struck both of us because it comes at a time where we should think back on how the Constitution was written.
Madison, of course, had a huge part in doing that and in conceptualizing what kind of a country was going to be created.
And so the judge in this article goes through and talks about the Madisonian model.
And it's just very, very important.
And as you say, for young people, I wish they would understand this as well.
And this, he does, he says, he says it very clearly here.
The Madisonian model offers that the federal government may only govern in the 16 unique, discrete areas of governance articulated in Article 1 of the Constitution.
And then he says the subtext was that the feds need the permission of the states or the people to do nearly anything.
Safety was left to the states.
There'd be no troops in the street as the colonists from Boston to Charleston had endured within with British soldiers, etc., etc.
The federal government was the one that had to seek permission from the states, not the other way around.
Yeah, that's one of the beefs I've had for a long time: the liberal will come up and say, well, we can do this.
I said, where does it say you can do it?
Well, no, they will argue that there's no exclusion.
They didn't tell us we can't do it.
So anything they said.
So that opened the door to everything.
But I don't think that's the way and the theme of what the Constitution was all about.
But, you know, he goes through several different things.
He talks about the foreign policy and all that goes on.
But I found it interesting that the first point he wanted to make as he goes in talking about the background, he said the first thing the Federalists did was in Congress to propose the creation of a federal bank.
And of course, the judge goes over about how Madison fought on this and then lost the argument.
You know, but in the long run, you know, not only lost the argument, I mean, look at where we are now from the on-again off-agounds.
I mean, some of these banks and Jefferson tried to stop them and Jackson tried to stop them.
And up until 1913, it became institutionalized.
And now it's just totally out of control.
And they spotted this.
Now I thought that was a good review of history that Madison and the judge saw that as the big point here to deal with, because my argument is if you don't deal with the money, you could let them do anything they want.
Then they only have to worry about the money.
And then they don't worry about deficits either.
And the judge is always great at bringing the theoretical or the history back to what's happening in the current day and age.
Now, let's do a couple of clips.
Put that first one up.
Now, this is just the article as it appears on the Ron Paul Institute website.
That photo I used is a photo of the German Stasi looking out over East Germany because, well, if you read the article, you'll understand.
But go to the next one.
Now, he centers it on what's happening now.
He said, America today would terrify the founding fathers.
Armed troops roam the streets of major cities.
Masked government agents arrest people without probable cause and disrupt the public speech that the president hates and fears.
And the president kills foreigners on the high sea, whom he says might commit crimes should their small speedboats miraculously make it 1,500 miles to the United States.
And so that is what's happened.
And he says that's what's happening.
So what did happen?
Well, the Madisonian concept of the country has been supplanted, as he well points out.
Go to the next one by the Wilsonian model, the evil, evil specter of Woodrow Wilson.
And here's how he talks about it.
120 years later, the Madisonian model had been discarded.
The states lost their powers as checks on the federal government they had created.
And the Wilsonian model, named after Woodrow Wilson, took effect.
The model holds that the feds may govern in any area for which there is a national political will, except that which is expressly prohibited to them in the Constitution, which is exactly what you just said.
Yes.
And this is something that is so appropriate today.
What he brings up to our attention about what is going on.
And one thing is, if you read this just with a half of an understanding, you have to realize that he's not talking about Democrats.
He's talking about issues and ideas in the Constitution.
And it just happens that the people we deal with and those that we think understand what's going on.
It's a bipartisan, it's a philosophic matter.
I mean, Wilsonian.
I mean, how many Republicans do you think wanted to march off to a war that was unnecessary in 1917?
So it's galvanized, but systematically since that time.
And the Wilsonian issue is pretty bold because, you know, that introduces the idea of 1913, you know, when things were passed and it was the Federal Reserve System and the income tax.
Yeah, if you could only go back and erase that, erase Wilson, erase all of that stuff, you know.
But you're absolutely right.
This is not a partisan.
This is not anti-Republican or anti-Democrat.
It's the recognition that the country is going in the wrong direction because we abandoned the best part of the country, which is the Madisonian concept.
So here are some of the things that he says.
So three events he says are instructive and they're lost on the Trump presidency here.
The first is the killing of non-combatants at sea.
Now we're at 80 some.
I think you said you saw something like 89 people have been killed at sea.
We're told they're enemy combatants.
We don't know any information about them.
We don't know where they come from.
We don't know what they were doing out there on the boats.
It could have been something nefarious.
They could have been smuggling drugs, but we don't have any information.
And he also mentions that George W. Bush, well, he did the same thing.
He tortured people.
The Justice Department told him he could torture people.
Barack Obama killed nonviolent Americans overseas with drones.
So that's the first.
The second now is something that I was on his show, I think, about a week or so ago, and we talked about this.
Trump directed foreign federal agents to disrupt, disrupt was the word they used, disrupt speech that is anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, or un-American.
That's the second thing that he said to do.
And then the third is arresting foreigners suspected of being unlawfully in the United States, but without any warrants, any probable cause, and taking them secretly with masks on and not letting them know what's happening.
So those are three pretty big things, I think.
And I imagine deep inside there, since they have their way, you certainly can't say anything against government.
That is a real crime.
And that's what they're cracking down.
That's what this whole thing is on college campuses to control it.
But first, they control the souls of individuals and corporations and universities sell their soul by accepting the money.
That stage is set there.
That means that the president can come along and decide, well, the authority is there.
And so we can offer them more money or we can take away their money and close them down.
And I use all these things.
So they have, under these conditions, been able to really encroach on the First Amendment.
And we see it currently right now going on with the various wars we have.
Absolutely.
That's the case.
And if you talk about, well, what do we need to do to fix the country?
Yeah, the Fed, that's a huge problem.
The neocons, the war machine, all of these are terrible things, lack of moral character in the U.S. now.
But if you could just do one thing in wave of Magic One, it almost seems if we could go back to Madisonian principles and go back to the idea that the federal government needs the permission, not the other way around.
It seems like that would be a great first step toward turning the country around.
You know, and he brings to attention, and I want to make sure everybody understands, this means that the president can't do this because he doesn't have the authority, and it's the Congress that has the authority.
It doesn't say that the president had it along to write legislation and all.
So they did this to declare war.
And that, of course, has been the beef of a lot of people.
And I think it was, I think Andrew might have even pointed this out since 1945.
You know, it's never been used.
It's just think how many, how many wars have been fought, how many people have died, and it was all unconstitutional.
It's certainly, I think it's pretty safe to say that essentially all immoral as well.
There wasn't anybody on our shore marching in.
And if we have problems here at home, that doesn't mean that we have to go kill terrorists 6,000 miles away.
We have a problem at home, but it's a moral problem, and it's not going to be accomplished by giving the license to government to do whatever they want, dictate speech, and control people by taking or giving special interests.
And that's how the system is run.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, it's a great article.
People should read it.
You'll find it on Lou Rockley, Fund Rompa Institute.
But you talk about dictating speech.
That leads into the second thing we want to cover because we've got a dictator right here in Texas.
Now, people will be upset hearing that, but remember that Greg Abbott is the one that shut down this country or shut down the state because of a virus that came out, and he was happy to have done it.
And then when he let us have a little bit of our liberty back, he wanted us to slap him on the back and say what a wonderful guy he was.
You remember that, sending police to churches to arrest people for going to church.
The liquor stores were open.
Greg Abbott's Dictatorship 00:02:52
The adult stores were open, but you couldn't go to church.
He really is in many ways.
Now, he's done some good things.
You know, absolutely.
He's good on the Second Amendment.
There's no question about that.
But what he's done with the First Amendment is terrible.
Now, put this next one up.
The New York Times put this out this week.
Texas governor declares Muslim Civil Rights Group a terrorist organization.
Governor Greg Abbott said the state could now take steps to shut down the Council on American Islamic Relations.
The group said the declaration had no basis in fact or law.
He just wants to shut them down.
So he said, okay, you guys are terrorists and we're going to shut you down.
That seems like an attack on speech, Dr. Paul.
Well, you know, the Muslim Brotherhood.
They were also named, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, and CAIR.
And I wasn't really aware of what they're all about, but it sounds like they should be encouraged.
I'm sure they're with imperfections, but the whole thing is, this is the whole idea of bringing people together, you know.
And I think that is, you know, insane to come down hard on these people and call, well, that's back to call them a terrorist.
That's what happened.
That was established after 9-11.
You know, everybody's a terrorist automatically will go to war.
Where do we go?
Did we go to the source of the problem?
No, no.
Saddam Hussein did it.
He did it all by himself.
We'll kill him and that'll solve all our problems.
But I think that there was the Brotherhood and CARE has issued a sentence or two in it trying to answer to Abbott.
Let me see if I can find a.
Although this comes from, I think, from the Brotherhood.
Although we are flattered by Greg Abbott's obsession with our civil rights organization, his publicity stunt masquerading as a proclamation has no basis in fact or law.
And CARE gives another one also.
By defaming a prominent American Muslim institution with debunked conspiracy theories and make-up quotes, Mr. Abbott has once again shown that his top priority is advancing anti-Muslim bigotry, not serving the people of Israel.
So the language is strong on both sides, but I'll tell you what, what they say now deserves a little bit of criticism.
And the thing is, if there is someone in care, or if there's someone in the Muslim Brotherhood and they break a law, well, they should obviously be arrested.
They should face the consequences.
Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Texas 00:08:42
But he's not doing that here.
He's saying you just can't exist.
You know, when we were on the Hill, we worked with CARE right after 9-11 because everyone just hated Muslims after that.
They were all guilty.
They all blew up the towers.
And so we did work with them, and they were a very good group to work with.
I don't know everything about them.
I don't know that they're angels, but the fact that the governor wants to shut down a group that represents people of a certain religion, can you imagine if he shut down a pro-Israel group?
It would never happen.
But this is a big deal.
And the thing is, there's going to be a lot of conservatives, a lot of Christians in Texas who are applauding this.
Yeah, we got to get these Muslims out of here.
But the thing is, be careful what you wish for, because if a governor can do that to one faith, one group, one organization, one area of interest, then of course he has the power to do that in the future.
What about a future governor of Texas who happens to be Muslim?
Could happen.
Who knows?
20 years, 10 years, and all of a sudden he shuts down the Christian churches.
It's just, it's a very bad move.
But it's a real easy issue to demagogue.
Yeah.
You know, if somebody wants to just get a position that should be debated in a different manner.
But, you know, there's one, the third thing that the judge points out, he talks about immigration.
Yeah.
And which is difficult.
This is not easy.
My opinion early on was: well, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
We were subsidizing what I considered over the line about opening the doors and entering into our houses and our homes and our pocketbooks and encouraging people and not have them.
I mean, just because we want to be open as much as we can, it doesn't mean they can come here and break laws.
So I think this was an important thing that is something that has to be addressed too.
Because I think the whole idea, I try to simplify it.
I always think, you know, the people, even some libertarians want to have borders open, you know, and I like borders open.
I don't want borders between our 50 states.
That was never meant to be.
So I don't think the borders should be, you know, that it should be generous, but we can't do this.
I say, look at it as if it's your house.
You know, the ones that want to argue for open borders.
Can we let your doors would Nancy Pelosi open her doors and let people walk in?
Oh, that's different.
Her husband takes it.
That's what people have told me before.
That whatever I may make a point, the most they can say, oh, that's different.
We didn't mean that.
So that's the whole thing.
People wouldn't be for that.
If it's a gated community, you can handle this.
Private property can do this, and it can handle many problems.
I think that a greater emphasis on what you can and can't do on private property deserves some attention.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, here's a couple of more things from the Abbott story.
Go to the clip, starts with anti-Muslim sentiment, if you can.
Anti-Muslim sentiment has been increasingly apparent in online discussions in Texas and in brick and mortar fights beyond the internet.
At the start of the year, many Republican state leaders, including Mr. Abbott and the state attorney general Ken Paxton, objected to a planned 400-acre residential development near Josephine, a town northeast of Dallas, that was designed to revolve around a new mosque.
The proposed development, known as Epic City, was organized by members of a suburban mosque in East Plano.
Now, I have a hard time understanding how you could oppose a group voluntarily creating a community based around their church.
For this, the only reason must be that it's a religion people don't like.
Well, there are a lot of unpopular religions in the U.S. That's why we have the First Amendment, and you can't single one out.
I mean, I've actually given speeches to Catholic groups about how you have to oppose the state's, the government's ability to regulate what you do.
I mean, I would like to see a Christian community done like this around a church like the old days used to be.
So, if we want to have something like that as a model or as a goal, we can't be shutting down this epic city just because we don't like that particular religion.
You know, this type of a problem has been around, and there's still a lot of talk, but it sort of impressed me that Babbitt has gone to such extremes to make it deal.
It was almost like, did somebody pressure him to do that?
Or do you think he was just because he's maybe has said similar things, but it's never been a big enough deal to come out like this.
But this just seems to be inviting this, you know, a disruption and an argument with somebody.
And I don't know what kind of pressure they might get.
I mean, he could have sincere beliefs about it, but he's allowed to, but just don't try to place all those into law and pressure and use the government to enforce any of these regulations.
And remember, it was just 100 or so years, 150 years ago, that the Mormons in the U.S., they were chased down and hunted down because a lot of people didn't like their religion.
So, these things can happen.
But, you know, Abbott goes even further than that.
If you go to the next one, I think he's already overstepped the bounds.
He's going to get knocked down in court, no question about it.
But he goes even further, Dr. Paul.
The governor also suggested that he was concerned about Muslim elected officials.
Now, here's a quote from Greg Abbott, Governor Abbott.
The concern is high, especially when you see someone like Mamdani get elected and the catacasmic problems that's going to cause.
I underline this.
We want to make sure that's never going to happen.
I read that as he wants to make sure that there's never going to be a Muslim elected in Texas, which is insane.
If you leave it up for a second, he says, we have freedom of religion.
However, your religion cannot become a threat to our freedom.
Well, if that religion did something illegal, then maybe something should happen.
But building a couple of houses in a mosque, how's that illegal?
happens if they say that libertarianism is a religion yeah we're going to stop these people in a you know we try to do that happen all along anyway because if there's a strong argument you know for the constitution of the members of congress they become the enemy you know even though they're following the oath of office better than anybody else they become the most uh the the easy target and uh as you know that That will change.
I believe there will be a change and there's a subtle change already, but it's not going to be a change without a little bit of cleansing.
And I think the cleansing of this system and having a better source of information is going to come through private education, homeschooling education, if they don't close us down.
Of course, that's what they've tried already in the past.
And we kid, but we shouldn't laugh about them ever getting concerned about us.
Yeah.
Well, the one big problem with Abbott is that he's absolutely obsessed with Israel.
You know, he's the one you have to, you had to sign.
He actually lost this.
You have to sign a paper saying you will never boycott Israel if you want to get any business with the Texas government at all.
But here's what Elsie's done.
The Gen X girl has a good couple of good things on X about this.
Texas is captured by the Israel lobby.
Governor Greg Abbott made it illegal to boycott Israel, invested $140 million in Israeli junk bonds, adopted the IHRA, that's the definition of anti-Semitism, to criminalize Israel criticism and Bible references.
He got sued by CARE and lost three times.
But let's talk about the Muslim problem.
So that's one of the problems.
And the tide of the country is turning against this kind of everything for Israel kind of thing.
Let's do America first.
And that includes tolerance for Jewish Texans, which absolutely should be, but also for Muslims and Christians.
Texas's Israel Lobby Capture 00:02:07
That's for sure.
But, you know, I think it's great that this issue of civil liberties and all this, the general article that we introduced the program with, with Napolitano, great stuff.
And also how upset a few of us are about what our governor's doing.
But I just wonder whether he, in a strict sense, I wonder whether he got some pluses or negatives from the general population on it.
I'm afraid he probably didn't get hurt.
Yeah, he probably didn't get hurt.
But anyway, I'm going to close out and thank everyone for watching the show today.
I hope you found, especially Dr. Paul's discussion of the Constitution, is always robust and interesting.
We appreciate it.
We appreciate you watching the show.
Give us a thumbs up, please, or a like, pass around the show, and put it up on social media.
Thank you.
Very good.
I want to thank all our viewers for tuning in today.
Today, we emphasized a special article written by our friend Judge Napolitano.
And it's a good summary.
It's on our website as well that you can reach and study because there's a lot of information in there.
And one of the reasons why we have worked so often and so energetically with the judge.
He will continue to do that, I'm sure.
But I think it's the issues that we get out that are so important.
And are we going to be optimists or pessimists?
Well, it's a mixed bag because I've been both.
You know, there's some days I feel more pessimistically than other days.
But basically, I think that if we can protect the First Amendment, allow people to speak out and not go to prison or not have your job lost or whatever they're going to do to you for challenging the state.
And what I have always argued, we have a First Amendment, not because we're allowed to talk about the weather.
We have a First Amendment to allow us to criticize our own government.
And I call that patriotism.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection