All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2022 - Tulsi Gabbard Show
01:16:16
WARNING: Our civil liberties are under attack - with Ron Paul | The Tulsi Gabbard Show
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everyone.
Thanks so much for joining me for today's episode of the Tulsi Gabbard Show.
The mere fact that we can sit here together today is because we live in a country that was founded on the principles of freedom.
Inalienable, God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution and inherent to each of us.
The right to free speech, freedom of religion, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Our civil liberties that are spelled out in the Constitution act as a restraint on how our government can treat us.
These rights are called negative rights because they dictate not what our government can provide for us, but instead what they cannot take away.
The right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a free press, the right to privacy and private property are just a few of these.
Now, our civil liberties ensure that we can live free from arbitrary government interference in these pursuits.
While these things may sound very obvious to us today, like, of course, this is important.
This is foundational to who we are as a country.
This was a really revolutionary concept when our founding fathers enshrined these rights and freedoms in our Constitution.
These rights and freedoms that continue to serve as a foundation for our democracy.
The antithesis of liberty is tyranny and freedom.
And over time, we have seen how some of our presidents have abused their power.
They've sought to create or take advantage of a crisis so that they can amass more power in the executive branch, weakening Congress, the people's house, the people's representatives, the people's voice.
And frankly, Congress has let it happen.
Now if we go back and look at what happened after 9-11, our country was reeling.
People were afraid.
Congress took action to pass the Patriot Act and create secret FISA courts.
the Bush administration at that time and subsequent presidents from both parties since to take away our civil liberties, to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, directly violating our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which ensures the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, which ensures the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
One would have thought that any legislation that proposed these extreme anti-constitutional measures would have been highly controversial, would have been hotly contested.
You would have members of Congress standing on the floor of the House and Senate debating rigorously how to strike this balance of security and freedom.
You would think there would be people in the media on television every night during this critical time debating this issue.
And talking about, perhaps, if we need to pass certain things, we need to make sure that the scope is very narrow, that we are upholding our constitutional rights and civil liberties, and making sure that there are clear objectives and a well-defined deactivation of these rules or restrictions or regulations.
But that didn't happen.
It didn't happen.
The Patriot Act passed the House with only 66 out of 435 members voting against it.
It passed the Senate with a vote of 98 to 1. Russ Feingold, a Democrat, was the lone no vote against the Patriot Act in the Senate.
Now, this happened, you know, in the days and weeks following 9-11.
We are now in the year 2022, and every time the Patriot Act comes up for reauthorization in Congress, it is reauthorized with the rubber stamp of overwhelming bipartisan support from permanent Washington.
When I was serving in Congress, I introduced legislation that would have repealed these violations of our civil liberties from the Patriot Act and ended the secret FISA courts.
But even when Democrats were in charge in Congress, Democrats who represent the party that should be standing up for civil liberties and freedom, they refused to even consider it for a vote, whether it was my bill or anyone else's.
And again, when those reauthorization votes come up, Those who dare speak in opposition, people like myself and a few others, we were labeled traitors.
How dare?
You must hate America.
You must want terrorists to come and attack us again and launch another 9-11-style terrorist attack on us, fomenting this fear so that they can continue to take away our freedoms and liberties.
There's no room for debate now.
They would not allow for discussion, no consideration made whatsoever around protecting our civil liberties.
A lot of lip service, maybe, but when you look at their votes and you look at their actions, they chose to strengthen Big Brother, the government, the national security state, permanent Washington, at the cost of our civil liberties and freedoms.
And so as a result, now we live in a country where no personal records are safe from the intrusive eyes of Big Brother.
Any American can now be wiretapped and the rights of habeas corpus are no longer guaranteed.
The Patriot Act allows the government to operate with increasing secrecy, very little to no transparency and we the American people lose more and more of our liberty.
Now, this is really important to remember as leaders in Washington are using Ukraine as they wage a proxy regime change war against Russia that they continue to escalate, risking World War III and pushing us to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that would destroy this world as we know it.
Because one of the things that comes with being in a war footing is martial law.
And whether they call it martial law and declare martial law or not, We have seen throughout history how leaders will use this war footing as an excuse to abuse their power and take away our freedoms.
We're not in this place yet, but we're already seeing how dangerous it is to stand up against warmongers without being silenced, smeared, canceled, discredited, or threats made that jeopardize a person's freedom and livelihood, ability to support themselves and their families.
They do this because they do not want opposition.
All they want is compliance.
Another law that I want to focus on here that is just as egregious as the Patriot Act in violating our civil liberties and due process is the Espionage Act.
Now, unless you've been really paying attention, it's possible you've never even heard of this.
It was a law that was passed in 1917 and from the very beginning was used to jail Americans who spoke out against our involvement in World War I.
So you see how these tactics today have been used for quite some time.
um Since its inception, the Espionage Act has been used to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans.
It's been used as a tool to selectively punish and target political opponents of those in power.
And in recent years, it has been weaponized to attack and threaten a free press.
One of the most famous cases that has gotten the most coverage in the mainstream media was when Daniel Elsberg was tried under the Espionage Act and sentenced to 115 years in prison.
115 years in prison because he released the Pentagon Papers that exposed the truth about what our leaders were doing and how they were lying to the American people about the Vietnam War.
This case ended up being thrown out by a judge after learning that the government was illegally spying on Ellsberg and wiretapping him, but others have been charged under the Espionage Act since.
President Obama has the distinction of making history because of his prolific use of going after people under the Espionage Act.
During his tenure, eight people were charged with leaking national security details to the media under the Espionage Act, including Edward Snowden.
This was more than all previous administrations combined.
The list of ways that our government continues to violate our civil liberties is long.
I'm going to go over just a couple of them before we get to our conversation with a really special guest.
Recent legislation that was enacted requires banks to report to the IRS when someone transfers more than $600 to another person using an app like Venmo or the Cash App.
Why does the IRS need to know this?
When supposedly they're focusing their limited resources and their new $79 billion bill and the 89,000 new IRS agents that they're hiring on targeting the wealthiest of Americans who are exploiting tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes on all their money.
No one can be faulted for not trusting the IRS, especially after during the Obama administration they specifically targeted conservative organizations that had the word patriot in their name.
One of the most egregious violations of due process is another thing that is very, very rarely focused on, but is happening across the country on any given day.
And that is the corrupt system of civil asset forfeiture.
This is when the government takes it upon themselves to come and seize the property from law-abiding Americans who have not even been charged with a crime and may never be charged with a crime.
One story I'll share with you, unfortunately there are many, but one in particular has to do with a young man pursuing a career in the music industry.
A guy named Joseph Rivers, 22 years old, he bought a one-way train ticket to Los Angeles and had some money saved up that he took with him to get his life started there.
Well, for the DEA agents who confronted him, that act alone, along with the fact that he was traveling with what they viewed was a large amount of cash, was suspect enough to assume that this young man was engaged in some kind of drug trafficking or narcotic activity.
Other passengers on that Amtrak train noted that Rivers, who's a young African-American man, he was the only passenger on that train to be singled out by the DEA. Rivers' attorney said Rivers' race likely played a role in that as he was the only black passenger on his section of the train.
But during this search and seizure of the cash that Rivers was carrying with him as he was going to start out a new life, he said he cooperated throughout the entire time, telling the DA, hey, call my mom.
Call my mom!
And she'll tell you that I am who I say I am and that I'm doing what I say I'm doing.
And as the agents took his money, he asked them, how am I going to survive?
If you take away my money, I'm not even going to be able to go home.
And according to Rivers, the DEA agency says, quote, But the DEA was still legally allowed to seize the $16,000 in cash that he carried, giving an explanation saying, well, we don't have to prove that the person is guilty.
It's that the money is presumed to be guilty.
This happens more often than we realize.
And in most cases, unless a person has the resources, the time and the energy to sue the law enforcement agency and sue the government to get their property back, that property is never returned.
And too often law enforcement agencies take advantage of this civil asset forfeiture law as a means of funding, of bringing more resources to their department.
Another example we've seen most recently, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
has demanded that credit card companies keep track of any and all firearm ammunition-related purchases, that those purchases, when you go into Dick's Sporting Goods or, I don't know, some other establishment and you buy some ammunition, well, Elizabeth Warren wants that to be annotated and coded separately from anything else you might purchase in there and potentially marked and reported for suspicious activity.
This is a direct violation of our privacy.
So through these examples and more, we can see how dangerous it is, and we have people in power who have no respect for the Constitution and who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution but don't take it seriously and, worse yet, reject it.
They show there are no boundaries.
They see themselves as rulers and we are their subjects.
They know what's best for us better than we do for ourselves.
And because of that, they see themselves as being entitled to any and every part of our lives.
My guest today has dedicated his life to defending our civil liberties.
He knows how dangerous a tyrannical government that takes away our rights can be.
His name is literally synonymous with the word libertarian.
I'm talking about my friend, Ron Paul.
He's a doctor who's delivered over 4,000 babies.
He is someone who has served our country in uniform, serving both in the Air Force and the Air National Guard.
And he also served in Congress.
He ran for president three times.
And after leaving Washington in 2013, he launched the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a foreign policy think tank that continues to do incredibly important work today, dedicated to peaceful foreign policy and defending our civil liberties.
disease.
Ron Paul is a New York Times number one bestselling author, as well as a current host of the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Please join me in welcoming my guest and my friend, Dr. Ron Paul.
How are you doing?
How are you?
Good.
Thank you.
It's good to see you.
Good to hear your voice.
Are you halfway around the world?
I am.
On the most remote island chain in the world.
I had a medical conference there many, many years ago, and all I remember about it is I saw a beautiful sunset.
I hope that means it was a great trip.
When was the last time you were out here?
It's been a long time because I was there with a medical conference after I was in the military, but I was there and then I learned a little bit about the military.
You know a little bit about the military.
They take care of themselves and there's a little base they had there on the beach.
Do they still have that?
They do.
You were in the Air Force, so you were at Hickam Air Force Base, right?
Yeah.
And yeah, they have some of the most beautiful secret secluded beach spots, you know, nice little cafes and bars and things overlooking the water.
It's not a bad place.
So that's the reason that we stopped in Hawaii for sure.
Nice.
Exactly.
Well, I think we're ready if you are.
I'm ready.
Sure thing.
Cool.
We'll just get right into it.
You know, I got to tell you, Ron, we've never actually met in person.
But over time, and especially during my presidential campaign, when we had one of our first conversations, when I was a guest on your show, immediately I felt like, you know, we were just kindred spirits.
You know, the fact that we have a shared background of having served in uniform, in the military.
You were a flight surgeon in the Air Force, is that right?
Right.
And you also served in the Air National Guard, obviously served in Congress.
And I think one of the things that really hit home for me was how, you know, outspoken you were about Speaking out against the military-industrial complex, against interventionist regime change wars, that was largely what motivated me to run for Congress in the first place and was very outspoken and worked on those same issues in Congress and since.
And, you know, we have both been vilified by permanent Washington and labeled as isolationists and anti-American and so forth.
So I have felt...
That we are kindred spirits in so many ways.
But I'm just curious, given your experience in Washington, you know, we served at very different times with different things happening in our country, different things happening in the world, and yet experienced exactly the same response from the Uniparty in Washington,
the permanent Washington that just cannot stand people who speak up for peace, who cannot stand people who say, you know what, the military industrial complex controlling our lawmakers and policies in Washington is dangerous to our country and to our freedom.
Why is it?
Why are they so threatened by us?
Why are they so threatened by this message?
I think they're threatened because it sometimes challenges the status quo and they're uncomfortable with it.
And there's a special interest involved.
There's a political interest because I'm sure you've been on the receiving end, but being in the military helps, you know, helps.
And that is, you're weak on national defense.
That's what they said to me and the President of the campaign.
You don't even support the troops.
Yeah, I don't want them to get killed for a no-win war.
Exactly.
You know, I used to think about that.
Why do they like me when they argue in this case?
And I got to thinking, well, I don't want to go to war.
I'm in the reserves.
I don't want them to start a war.
Yeah, I think it shows, really reveals such a disconnect, right, between kind of the war hawks in Washington who don't hesitate to beat the war drums, don't hesitate to say, hey, let's go bomb this country or that country, let's go send the troops, send the troops, when really it is such a transparent effort to pretend that they are strong or to pretend that they are patriotic,
when in fact, as you and I know firsthand, as our brothers and sisters in uniform know, You don't honor our troops by just sending them to go fight in wars that have nothing to do with our own national security.
We honor our men and women in uniform by honoring the sacrifices that they make and that their families make and ensuring that they are fulfilling that mission of defending our country and defending freedom.
But the other thing is, I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of this.
You know, your policies, yeah, sounds nice, but that shows your weakness.
You're too weak.
You don't want to stand up to it.
That's neutralized a bit because both of us have been in the military, but that's not the final answer because they get this idea that trying to change policy for the betterment and stand by the Constitution, that is not a weak position.
You have to know what you believe in.
That's fascinating to me to meet people like you.
I wonder how they got started on these kind of programs.
And comparing notes, it's always very interesting to compare notes with two people who finally get together and say, you know, that's what I believe.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And you're exactly right.
It takes more strength oftentimes to exercise restraint and more strength to stand up against those powers that have existed since, you know, President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex and still hold true today.
I want to mention a quote that I know you know very well from James Madison when he said, Now, this is something that I think a lot of people don't know of or think about because so often...
Time after time after time when politicians say, well, we have to go to war to defend freedom.
We have to go to war to defend democracy.
And yet here James Madison is warning that of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded.
Tell us why he said that and why it is still as true today as it was when he made that statement.
Well, it's such a true statement because that takes a political position of standing up.
If you want to be patriotic, you have to join in no matter what.
And they fail to look at it in the larger spectrum on, you know, is it a What is a good war?
And how did they try to solve that problem?
They tried to solve it by making war very rare and that a president can't initiate war.
It was an eye-opener for me.
You know, I was, you know, at the drafty age.
I was in the—I still just finished high school during the Korean War.
And even then, I wasn't well into all this, you know, the politics of it.
Where does he get this authority to take us to war?
And that was the first time.
That was a big thing.
Well, we got permission from the United Nations.
So globalism comes into this, too, on how to do it.
But this issue of war, war is an instrument whereby they can expand the state.
And some people, that's their sole goal.
So you can understand that.
But I expand the definition of war and what he infers there.
I'm sure he's talking about war with different countries.
But I think the warring type of attitude is what allows us to expand for various reasons.
The war against the virus, that's a good war to get, you know.
Are you want to fight this war against the virus because you want to expand knowledge and science?
Oh no, they did exactly the opposite, but it's a war and they were using that.
And you must comply.
Yep, that's it.
They had a political goal in that, and so warring against, maybe I could generalize and say, anytime there's a war against liberty, that's a broader approach, but that's what we're, I believe, we're trying to stop.
Yeah.
I think as you're talking about this, whatever the war may be, whatever they're saying the cause for the war is or the need for the war is, as divided as Washington can be on any given day, whether you're talking about things like immigration or healthcare or any of these other things, I can't think of a single time where The two parties in Washington have taken a partisan line against a war.
Almost always it is that uniparty, that permanent Washington that is standing together in support of waging more wars.
I saw this as the reauthorization for the Patriot Act came up while I was in Congress and was aghast when I saw how those of us who spoke up against those civil liberties violations within the Patriot Act, those gross abuses of our constitutional rights still existed, how we were labeled as traitors.
Literally.
On the House floor, some of our colleagues saying, if you oppose reauthorizing the Patriot Act, you are a traitor and you are inviting another 9-11 terrorist attack on America.
You are standing with jihadists like al-Qaeda against the safety, security, and well-being of the American people.
And these attacks were coming from Republicans.
Yeah.
Democrats and Republicans in Washington continue to rubber stamp it every single time it comes up for reauthorization.
When it was first put in place, you were were you the lone vote against the Patriot Act?
No, no, there were there were more.
I can't remember the numbers, but there weren't very many Republicans.
I remember the vote very clearly because I was sitting next to a Democrat and a friend and, you know, at least we talked a lot and he was fairly conservative, you know.
So we were sitting there and he knew and I knew that we shared some views.
So I was voting there and there weren't very many no votes up there.
So I voted no.
And I said, what are you going to do?
He said, I'm going to vote for it.
He says, why are you going to vote for it?
You know better.
He said, oh, I know.
You're right.
He says, but I don't want to go home and have to explain it.
To my constituents.
I said, that's your job.
Exactly.
You know, and that's the way it was.
It was easy for.
But the other thing that bugged me when I went to Washington is some votes would come up and everybody would march to the desk.
I don't know whether the Democrats did this.
On the desk, they would have, if it's a controversial economic matter, and they might list...
Ten groups and ten businesses here that were for it and ten businesses over here.
So you were to go down there and match it up.
Well, let me see.
Are any of those people in my district and not in my district?
And that was the way they sorted it out.
So staff had to figure that out, you know, what's going on.
My staff claimed they had an easier job because...
Because, you know, I told him, I said, you better, you know, you know what my rules are, don't you?
And I said, but you're pretty lucky because you probably only have to read the title.
Because when the title is up there, it'll be exactly opposite of what the title is.
That's so true.
The most recent example of that, of course, is the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I don't think that it had even been signed into law yet, or maybe it was right after, like, well, actually, that's not what this does, and they said it themselves.
That's a great example.
My staff, we joked, maybe half-jokingly, that they actually had to work harder and Because, you know, the daily whip notices and the things from the party saying, hey, here's how you should vote and here's why.
I told them to completely ignore those and we got to do the work and we got to do the research to figure out exactly what do these bills actually do and not rely on whatever the party line, either party line was.
Because as you know, both were generally biased in one direction or another.
Yeah.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, you know, because when you just dig back into people who've been there before and they're going to sort of wrote that I had another rule that it might be controversial.
You might not even think it's a good idea, but I had a rule.
Don't hire any former staffers with others.
Oh, I've been here for 30 years and I know the road and I want to work on your staff.
Yeah, we're not we're not hiring people like that.
Yeah, yeah.
I want to just jump back to the Patriot Act for a second because a lot of people have become so normalized.
It's been quite some time, what, over two decades now since it was put in place.
Congress reauthorizes it with a rubber stamp.
Democrat and Republican leaders continue to support it.
So there's not a kind of frontline mainstream debate that should be happening, which is why there was a 10-year sunset on that legislation when it was first passed anyway, so that theoretically Congress could do its job, look at it again, see, hey, are these measures still necessary or should we get rid of them? are these measures still necessary or should we get rid That just doesn't even happen.
It's like, okay, the Patriot Act reauthorization is up, put in a vote, and hardly anybody has any real debate on it.
Why do you think it is that, I guess, guess the public at large has been kind of numbed to this and why there isn't more public pressure on Congress to actually examine these things that are in the Patriot Act in a constitution through a constitutional lens and then do their job in making sure that that our rights are being upheld.
Because what you're talking about is very, very superficially.
They look at it superficially.
And I think in a way, one of my statements a little while ago would answer that question.
My colleague is sitting there and he says, I know you're right, Ron, but I can't go back home.
It's a patriarch, don't you know?
So I would think that carries through.
Why try to explain it?
Then you become Ed Snowden.
He has to escape to Russia.
You know, that to me is so tragic.
And he was closer to the Constitution than the rest of them.
And the other thing is that we're facing is that it doesn't...
Some people might not buy this right now.
I says, really?
They keep saying, well, shouldn't there be a third party?
And I'm sure you get that.
Should we have a third party?
You know, I said, I'm working on a second party.
Right.
That's so true.
You know, the foreign policy is one.
The Patriot Act is another one.
Anything political, budget.
Oh, the Republicans are going to save us.
So they are going to save us on the budget, but they don't support it.
They will even suspend some really, really...
The activities going on politically.
Oh, we all have to get back and vote for the Patriot Act or something like that.
And they'll all go back and vote for the same thing.
But it's a political thing.
It's a pretense.
And it's maybe a sign of laziness.
And they're reading the leaves and they say, well, you know, if I don't want to have a headache and if I I have to go back there and explain that.
I might lose some votes.
And I didn't win by very much last time.
And they do that.
And so they're pragmatists.
They're utilitarians.
They don't believe in a principle.
And then you say, well, what principle do you follow?
I said, well, you know, the Constitution might not be perfect, but it's a pretty good start for us.
Absolutely.
That's the one we take the oath for.
Why couldn't we just follow that on the war issue?
I don't know if you've ever heard the little story that happened when we were given the authority to go into Iraq.
And I was on the committee, and almost everybody was for it.
And the debate was going on, giving the authority.
And I made him vote on an amendment that said that you have to declare war.
And this is it.
Declare war.
If you want to send kids over there, you have to declare war.
Henry Hyde, who was the chairman and one of the most respected members of Congress, he said, I know, Dr. Powell, you're a good constitutional.
But, you know, that part of the Constitution is anachronistic.
We don't follow it anymore.
Wow.
Well, that told me exactly where we were.
And it wasn't like he was way off, you know, on the edge politically.
He was the center of it.
He was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
And we had all those rules about how long it would be.
So they just got around that.
But if you were an insider, they just switched your committee.
So he went from judiciary over to the Foreign Policy Committee.
So then I knew where we were.
But that describes the problem.
Yeah, it does.
You know, because he blunted out a real truth, you know, there.
I've not heard that before.
Every once in a while when you hear these guys talk that they will blurt out a truth inadvertently, but they might not even know what they're doing.
Yeah.
That's sort of mean, but I don't know.
No, it's actually true.
It is true.
Every now and again, you know, what do they say?
Like they say the quiet part out loud, right?
The thing that no one's supposed to actually admit in broad daylight.
And I think it also what you're describing just shows how many people in Washington, and I'm not even going to say leaders in Washington because they're not leading people.
They are followers and they're driven by fear.
Like the colleague that you mentioned on that Patriot Act vote, I've had similar conversations with former colleagues of mine.
And really reacting constantly and making decisions from a place of fear rather than a place of leadership and love and appreciation for the Constitution in our country and saying, hey, stepping up and doing my job means going back to my constituents and speaking to the American people about this is why this is important.
This is why this is in the best interest of the country.
You talked about a few examples, the Patriot Act being one of them.
War being another issue.
Another that doesn't get talked about much is the Espionage Act.
And I think there's probably a lot of folks who are listening or watching right now who maybe have heard mention of it but haven't really talked about it.
Espionage Act of 1917 used against Edward Snowden, used against Julian Assange, used against Daniel Ellsberg, obviously famously for the Pentagon Papers.
So when they go back and look at these different examples, Daniel Ellsberg, for example, the Pentagon Papers, the Washington Post are like, oh, look at this great thing that was done.
And yet we fast forward a few years to the Obama administration, where more than any other president he prosecuted people, charged and prosecuted people under the Espionage Act.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
What is wrong with the Espionage Act and how it's being abused and how it can be fixed, if it can be?
See, I have trouble separating that because I see that blending in with all that they do, Because the respect for an interpretation of the Constitution is careless.
So once again, I think they'll use the espionage act.
These are people, they're traitors, and we have to stop that.
Even though in their practicality, I don't think they've really improved things, but it sets the stage, you know, for unbelief.
We're undermining, you know, the whole concept of liberty.
The other thing that I think that we, on this side of our argument that we're making, is that we underestimate the people.
And I'm sure you have come across some very good people.
I always, when I first ran and when I was for uplection and what I did, the one thing is, is the job, no meaning to me, and yet I ended up there for 23 years.
I don't know what I was...
Thankfully.
But if I took votes, you know, for the purpose of making a point, and that is passing our gold medals to people who are very, very good people.
And I said, well, I don't think that was meant by the founders that we take money from poor people and give them a fancy gold coin.
Back then, it was like $25,000 or something.
And these people were very well-known.
But, you know, that became a badge of honor instead of that being used against me.
So the people, when they hear that, all of a sudden, why is he doing this?
One time when there was a gold coin for Cardinal O'Connor, very, very nice person.
And I was the only one that voted against his gold medal.
And we talked on the phone, and I explained it to him.
I called him, and he said, oh, that's no problem.
But the people who were won the bill, they were so outraged.
It was like 430 to 1, and we have to have it.
We have to have it unanimous.
And in a way, all of a sudden, if you're making a point of telling the truth, that your one vote becomes equivalent to their nonsense, you know?
And the New York Times called my staff on that vote, and they said, well, why voting against there?
Is he against all Catholics?
And that's it.
No, he's just against all gold coins and on principle.
And the New York Times is, oh, okay.
It wasn't of any interest to him.
It was just that, well, he could be, maybe he has a history of being against Catholics or something.
That's how rich it is.
Yeah, I think that politicizing of different votes and different issues and, you know, the more that I've learned about the Espionage Act, the more I've seen how it is one of those things that sounds like it has good intent of being able to prosecute true and willful traitors to our country,
But instead has been one of those things that's literally been weaponized as a political tool to go after those whistleblowers who expose truths about those in power that they are embarrassed by or that make them look bad or expose, frankly, even perhaps the illegal or criminal acts that have been conducted in the name of government.
And I had a chance to sit down and talk with Daniel Ellsberg a couple of years ago, and it was just so interesting to me to hear a lot of the things that aren't talked about, about how those convicted are charged under the Espionage Act.
Daniel Ellsberg a couple of years ago, and it was just so interesting to me to hear a lot of the things that aren't talked about, about how those convicted are charged under the Espionage Act.
You're not allowed to defend yourself in court.
You're not allowed to defend yourself in court.
You're not allowed to speak to the intent of, in Daniel Ellsberg's case, hey, why did you release those Pentagon papers?
You're not allowed to speak to the intent of, in Daniel Ellsberg's case, hey, why did you release those Pentagon papers?
Why did you go and steal those documents and make copies of them?
Why did you go and steal those documents and make copies of them?
He could not even speak to his intent, and he could not speak in his own defense.
And it's one of those things that, especially in this current time under this administration, we see these increasingly authoritarian-like tactics being used where you've got, what is it, a newly stood up domestic terror unit to go after parents a newly stood up domestic terror unit to go after parents who are protesting at boards of education because they care about their kids'
These different elements within our government that are being weaponized to go after political opponents or quote-unquote dissidents, I think points to such a dangerous time.
And I know abuse of the FBI in particular is something that you've been outspoken about.
Have you ever seen it this bad before where these public institutions are being so weaponized for political purposes?
Absolutely.
No, it's worse than ever, and it's getting worse quickly.
The description that you just made of the Espionage Act, I agree with 100%, but I think that idea is well entrenched in the IRS. I mean, the tax system is so bad.
It's based on the assumption that everything a citizen makes belongs to the government, and you get to spend a portion of it that they give you permission for.
So that is really a big attack on personal liberty.
But you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and it's pretty hard to do that.
So it's a system that's engraved into it, and there's always this superficial benefits to somebody.
And often it's...
Generally speaking, it's always to help poor people.
And guess what?
If you look at the monetary system and what deficits do, what wars do, who suffers the most?
Poor people.
And I'm sure you know some people you've met in the military that might be there for survival purposes.
And they have a tough time.
So it's something that I think is just horrible of what they have done to make somebody go through this agony.
And it's a violation of individual liberty and individual rights that do this.
I concentrate often, maybe too often, about a big picture.
You know, if it's the Espionage Act, yes, but it's also the Patriot Act.
And I think you understand what I'm saying.
It's this idea that anything that's pragmatic, And another thing I've decided, I wrote a note to myself, and I was saying something, people, you know, they kept doing this, this, and this, and it was all dumb.
I said, I think what happens is politicians come to believe their own lies.
They don't start off with saying, well, a little fudge it here because I need this for my vote.
They just do it and think it's a good thing.
And they fib a little bit, a little demagoguery here, until finally they believe their lies.
They believe that if we give up, just think, I am well aware of the 60s, and I was in the military because I was drafted.
And they said, oh, there's going to be a domino effect.
Well, it didn't happen.
There was more of a domino effect with Western ideas, and we ended up trading with Vietnam.
The whole thing makes no sense, and I put a lot of blame on people like myself and others who believe this.
I don't think we do a good enough job explaining our position because it's such a great position.
It's good, it's moral, it's principled, it's constitutional, and it's very practical.
The domino theory was that if Vietnam goes, if South Vietnam goes, that the Communists, the Chinese and maybe the Russians would just go down and take everything in the South, you know, the Far East.
They would just go get that and then it would be Japan and they just keep working over.
But it was a thing that went around a whole lot and that's why it was national defense because the plan was they would take over.
Sounds like something we're hearing a lot in the news lately about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and how Russia is now going to take over all of Europe and therefore NATO must be strengthened and expanded.
And meanwhile, Russia is struggling even in its invasion of Ukraine to try to hold on to small pieces of territory.
Yeah.
And not a whole lot of news stations talk about the events of 2014. You know, we were involved a little bit in that.
You know, we're against those conservatives and others.
They were committing a coup on January 6th, and their enemies, their terrorists, and all that.
And yet, we're...
Into the coup business.
All you have to do is look up how many countries we've been involved and took over the government.
Matter of fact, I reference 1953 under Eisenhower.
He was just in office for a month or two when he participated with England to throw out an elected leader over Iran.
And I tell people, the Iranians have long—Americans don't have any memory of what they do.
I've talked with friends of mine who, you know, were children of people who fled Iran, and their memory is very long, and we're still— Experiencing the consequences and ramifications of that coup, that US-led coup at that time.
Before we move on, you mentioned the IRS. And I want to dig into that a little bit because there was a big bill that was passed recently into law that...
What has it funded them?
About $80 billion to hire 87,000 new IRS agents.
And, you know, of course, the excuse that's given is, well, of course, we need $80 billion to be able to go after the most wealthy of Americans, the very top of the 1%, because they're the ones who are, you know, trying to bypass their taxes.
And if you're just an everyday working American or if you're a small business owner, you know, you have nothing to worry about.
However, there was something that they snuck in there, right, that said, oh, if I send $601 to a friend of mine because I bought, I don't know, a couch from him, if I send it to him on Venmo, then that'll trigger a reporting requirement in the bank to the IRS of that transaction.
And I heard you say when that bill was passed that a supersized IRS will shrink liberty.
I don't know if anybody likes the IRS, but I've never heard anyone connect the growing powers and abuses of the IRS to our civil liberties.
Yes, and if you get a new administration and they share some of our views, they say, yes, we're going to put a better manager on there.
Some of it has read the Constitution.
He'll be more cautious.
I don't believe that's very practical.
I don't think it works because it's too big.
And I do think there are people who are very powerful and very, very rich, have a lot of influence on what's going on.
So it Not to solve the problem.
And that's why 1913 is a bad year.
The big, you know, the taxation, you know, the income tax was a big deal.
And it's a problem.
Tremendous weapon.
I fear them.
That doesn't mean I'm guilty of anything.
I'm just fearful of going through a lot of nonsense and maybe it's used.
We've heard stories where administrations have used it and I'm sure they managed to do that.
So that is really the only solution for me is that If you have a country defending individual liberty like towners wanted, you wouldn't have an income tax and you wouldn't have that type of approach where on one sweep you put 87,000 new people in and some will be gullible.
We're going to go get the rich.
Well, that's not going to work.
It's going to hit the average person because the greatest tax is the most regrettable taxes, and that's the inflation tax.
And I tell people, if you're worried about, you know, they don't worry about, we just tax so-and-so, but you're paying it.
They dilute the money, devalue your currency.
I said, The best thing to do is concentrate on your grocery bill, your gasoline bill.
Then you will find out who's paying the taxes.
Does a rich person, the millionaires, they care what the price of a loaf of bread is?
No.
That's just totally destructive of the middle class.
Mises, the great Austrian economist, makes a strong, he says, if you have a fiat currency that you continue to devalue, you will destroy the middle class.
And there was a time in our history where the middle class was very instrumental in our prosperity.
So, Ron, you ran for president three times.
As president, what is the solution?
What taxes should be in place?
And how would the IRS look under your administration?
Would it exist at all?
No, I wouldn't want it to.
I would have to...
You know, you have to think about the circumstances.
You could do some of that with executive orders, but you might want to have a Congress.
None of that is going to work on dealing with the IRS or the Federal Reserve.
You have to have the support of the Congress, but you have to have support from both.
Some of this, this is where I become more optimistic because people are waking up.
I went in 1976 and people would come up, what in thunder are you talking about?
You know, you talk about Austrian economics and the gold standard and all this stuff.
It's different now.
And people...
Because the bubble and the distortion and debt is so much worse than it was in the 1970s when we had this horrible decade.
They finally did admit that the monetary system is in bad shape and they had to declare bankruptcy.
We are no longer able...
To honor our dollar.
And I'm surprised that we survived so well.
Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
The people are suffering.
And you can live beyond your means, spend too much, run up too much debt.
But eventually, the people who have been doing okay, which is the middle class, they did okay, they will have to pay the bill.
And that's what we're doing.
We're paying the bill.
What we do about it, I don't think the solution is there.
You could do executive orders.
You'd have to sense on how much support you could get.
But ultimately, I believe it's an educational process.
And I spend a lot of time in education.
And I think you've talked about education.
The education system, it's government.
Just think about how our country was started.
The great universities and the great hospitals were started by private individuals, not the federal government or the United Nations or whatever.
So that's where it's a real problem.
But I got fascinated with Austrian economics back in the 60s, and there were predictions that the Bretton Woods would break down.
And that was a big event for me.
And understanding what went on.
And of course, I have a homeschooling program to try to promote that.
But I think, ultimately, ideas are important.
And I also believe that the government we have is only supporting When it's supported by the concept of the people, general acceptance of this.
And now that we're starting to see some shifts, that's how COVID really ended.
The people's attitudes changed.
So that's what has to happen.
And everybody has a responsibility to change those attitudes.
Yeah, you mentioned education and the overreach of government and what are we teaching our kids.
I was homeschooled.
I didn't know you had a homeschooling program, but I was homeschooled.
My parents are teachers and they had a very specific goal in how they wanted to raise us and what kind of education they wanted us to receive as kids growing up.
So they taught us at home.
And back at that time, it was not as kind of normalized as it is now.
But I loved it, and it was an incredible experience.
And I look at the experience that I had as a kid growing up homeschooled.
I went out, did martial arts, we surf, we played tennis, we did all this other stuff.
We had a lot of extracurricular activities, but it was the kind of education that my parents wanted for us.
And you compare that now To, of course, what played out in the national stage in Virginia, you know, when parents were told by former Governor Terry McAuliffe and the National Teachers Union talking heads on MSNBC and so forth that, you know, as parents, you don't get a say.
In your kid's education.
That you don't, you're not qualified, I think they were told, you're not qualified to speak on your child's education.
That the teachers union knows better, the state government knows better, the federal government knows better.
And it's just, it's incredible to me.
I put out a tweet recently saying parents should be, parents are responsible for their raising of their child.
And that, I was excoriated on Twitter For saying parents are responsible for raising their children, not the government.
How that has become a controversial statement in this day and age, I think, is both a sign of how wrongheaded our government leaders are, but also on the positive side, what you're talking about.
How more and more parents, maybe who weren't politically involved or paying attention before, If you're going after my kids, no.
That is where that line is crossed and getting informed and educated.
And also just looking at the facts, like the government, we have almost half of kids graduating from high school functionally illiterate.
So if the government's saying, hey, we are responsible for raising and educating our kids, well, gosh.
You are failing.
You are failing our children in so many ways, focusing on the wrong things, and the most fundamental basics of education are being missed, which kind of goes to your other question about taxes.
Because we're paying for this education.
All of us are.
And where are the results?
Now you let the secret out.
Now I understand things much better because whenever I meet somebody that seems to, you know, think.
Novel concept.
You don't have many up in Washington.
But I thought, I wonder exactly what's her background?
Where did she do it?
Did she read Hayek or what?
No, it's homeschooling and parents.
And there's a solution.
It's not complicated.
And that was one of the reasons why, as soon as I got out of Congress, I started this.
It's the Ron Paul curriculum.
And it's not gigantic, but it's, of course, I think it's good.
And it's fulfilled some difficulties during COVID. We had some, but it's something that I think as long as we can still express ourselves like we're doing right now, and as long as we can still get to an educational system that is out of the government, In the 1980s, they were really cracking down hard on homeschooling and private schooling and church schooling.
That was really a bad negative.
So, yes, they're going to be always a threat to homeschoolers and private schooling because, you know, if there's the most minor infraction there, somebody's going to crack down on.
But I think it's, you know, I think it's just great.
So I was delighted to hear your story.
Well, you've raised your own kids, one who's gone on to be a U.S. Senator, and I really enjoyed working with Rand while I was in Congress.
We worked on different pieces of legislation together.
He was the only senator who co-sponsored my bill, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
Went and shared it with every single member of Congress, every single member of the House, every member of the Senate.
He was the only one Who had the courage, why it would take courage, to sponsor a bill called the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Again, confounds me.
But he was the only one with the courage to put his name on that legislation and was my partner in introducing that bill.
He obviously has been very outspoken about the dangers and threats of gain of function research.
He has been very outspoken in holding people like Dr. Fauci accountable to science.
And the truth during a time in our country over the last few years of this pandemic where even asking questions, even asking questions of the authority deemed you a threat and someone who must be censored or silenced or smeared.
Two questions for you.
One, personally.
You raised Rand, and he has come to be a person of courage and principle in the US Senate.
What were the values and principles that were important for you to instill in him and your other children?
And then secondly...
What is the cause of us living at a time where they say, follow the science, but when you question the facts, when you question their thought process, when their quote unquote science has proven to be wrong because new information comes to light and they won't apologize or admit it,
why are we in a culture now where This marketplace of ideas and discussion is so feared that working with big tech, our government now has to shut down anything that they deem as misinformation.
Again, even though at a certain point, even in the near future, their statements and their policies are proven wrong.
Well, we're dealing with cultural Marxists and they have a determination.
They know what kind of society they want.
And they have believed from the very beginning of Marxism that you have to destroy what is left or what you have.
Start with a clean slate and, you know, give us pure Marxism.
So that's their goal.
And therefore, their greatest enemy is truth.
And they become very nihilistic in the sense that you don't know the truth, so you can't listen to these people that want to talk about the truth of the Constitution.
And the basic fundamentals of telling the truth, that's an enemy because that challenges the people that resort to, you know, cultural Marxism and what they do.
This wokeism becomes their religion.
You know, the people who don't believe in truth, they don't believe in a higher being.
And they don't believe in a higher law.
So what they do is they just go along and they devise it.
They become the arbiter.
They become, you know, a cult.
And they become godlike.
And they say that there can't be truth, but the only truth they have is what we say.
We determine everything is true.
But yet they say, you know, Nietzsche said, there's no way.
There's no way you can decide what is true and what is not true.
Well, a few of us disagree with that.
And I think most people in the world, throughout all of history, from the beginning of time, even before Adam and Eve, there was a recognition of right and wrong, good and evil.
The Marxists, the people that want to have this control, they recognize the problem, but they want to be total dictators.
Now, you ask a short question, I think, about Rand, and we have five kids, and three of them are physicians, and we've lost one daughter not too long ago from cancer.
You know, you can't say, well, we've groomed Rand to do such and such.
No, he was always independent minded.
He was always a little more attracted to politics than the rest.
But I remember when I was out of Congress for 12 years and I was going back in in 96, he got really involved in it.
He likes organization.
He's a more detailed person.
And I never cared for that.
I just wanted to talk about the Federal Reserve.
But he took off school and came and organized the families.
He said, you will go out and lock on the doors.
And that wasn't my thing.
But he did a lot in that 96 election where it wasn't easy to go back into Congress that late, especially when just about every Republican opposed me.
But no, he's been interested, and I'll tell you what, I think he's doing a great job, but he's fearless.
And I think, you know, in that sense, he's not, I would consider myself a little bit bashful about, can't you guys wake up?
Yeah.
But he's, I think, just doing great.
I think people know that he is seeking truth.
And one of the person that needs the most discipline and truth that's a public figure right now is that guy Fauci.
So that's a good target.
And I think they'll always remember Rand's battle with Fauci.
So Rand has already warned him, if the Senate is controlled by Republicans, you'll hear from me.
Oh, absolutely.
I have no doubt about that.
It was interesting to see as all of that was playing out how this guy, Dr. Fauci, that many people had never heard of before was almost lionized as some kind of untouchable, unquestionable You're a deity of some sort.
And for any public figure, whether you're an elected official or you are a bureaucrat, as Dr. Fauci has been for decades, you are accountable to the people.
By design, you are accountable to the people.
And to see Rand and others criticized for just asking questions and holding him accountable is actually pretty frightening for the country.
You know, the most outrageous thing, and there was plenty of outrageous with Fauci.
But when he says, I am science, he is the least about science.
I forgot about that.
You're right.
That's how they turn things around.
It's sort of somebody was in 1984 or something.
Language means nothing.
And so I am science.
That's dangerous.
You know, in medical school, debates were very important.
I love the debates.
The professors debated, the students debated, and if there's no debate and science has settled it, you know, it gets pretty boring.
But science doesn't settle it.
If you think science has settled it, you don't know what you're talking about because science has produced many more questions.
You know, and that's how knowledge is accumulated because it isn't like, we'll end here.
We know everything we need to know about vaccines.
Oh yeah, natural immunity.
That used to be something we learned in medical school.
Oh, but now it doesn't mean anything, you know?
And we don't follow that anymore.
We talked to Bill Gates.
He has some ideas.
He said it'd be good for his bank account.
Like, he needs more money.
Exactly.
But he wants control.
He's a controlled person on population.
So that's what his interest is.
You know, I want to just point on something that you mentioned.
I'd forgotten Fauci's statement of that, saying, I am science.
But it actually, when you peel back the layers on that, like you said, what we're seeing are these people who essentially believe that they are God.
that they are in control, that they get to determine what is right and wrong, what is truth or what is not true, and really how dangerous that is.
When we look at our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and that recognition of those inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator, they are designating themselves as that authority, that higher power, and that the rest of us are their subjects.
That's really how dangerous this mindset is that they have.
Another example that we see of this, of course, is their denial in the truth that there are differences between biological men and women.
And how that's being manifested through their different policies, obviously related to sports and other things.
But when you peel back, this is bigger than sports.
This is, again, about their rejection of the fact that there is objective truth and them placing themselves in that position of essentially being God and how offensive and how dangerous that mindset is.
And that spiritual rot, where that's coming from.
So somebody was, you know, explaining this and I was in the presence there and he was sort of talking to me about no biological differences.
And I said, boy, I'm in trouble.
I don't know if you know it.
I'm a gynecologist.
I spent a lot of time trying to understand the differences.
And I also understood very early on that I, probably back then, you were almost allowed to teach whatever they wanted to.
They actually taught, if you're going to take care of a pregnant woman, you're taking care of two people.
And there's a legal argument for that too, because I was also taught that if I did something wrong and injured the fetus, I could be sued.
So I always knew there were two individuals.
But this whole thing is, I told them, I said, I'm going to be confused.
So I don't even know if they'll let me in medical school anymore.
In this day and age?
I don't know.
That's actually a legitimate question.
Yeah.
Crazy.
You know, Ron, I spoke a few months ago at this incredible event hosted by Young Americans for Liberty, an organization that was founded, I believe, in the wake of your 2008 presidential campaign.
And, you know, I had not done anything with them before.
This was down in Florida.
And so I wasn't fully sure what to expect.
But my gosh, I walked away so inspired.
I had the privilege of sharing this huge room, this huge hall with, it was, I don't know, 1,500, 2,000 college students who Who are so fired up for freedom, liberty, the Constitution.
I think they've memorized every single phrase and soundbite you've ever delivered.
They were screaming them out.
They were hooting and hollering.
And I left really feeling energized and inspired because these kids were not just kids who came there showing up for a good time on the weekend and then forgetting what they heard from different speakers and talked about and then going back to their everyday lives.
These kids are fired up because they understand the challenges that we face, the challenges that you have spoken about for years and that continue to increase.
And they're going out to do the work.
So to them and to people at home, whether they be parents or students or people who are working in different jobs, to our men and women in the military who are concerned about the culture of leadership of this country.
As we wrap up our conversation, I'd love to hear your message to our fellow Americans about the threats that we face to our civil liberties now.
And what is our responsibility as individual Americans to be the change and be a part of the solution?
You know, I get that question asked when Crosley, you mentioned at YAL or if I go to a campus in the campaign.
They'll come out and say, you've convinced me.
I understand now.
I see the light.
Tell me what I have to do.
And I always tell them, do whatever you want to do.
Just do it because everybody has their own thing to do.
You've done your thing and you're still doing it and things move along.
Everybody has some responsibility and everybody is not equal in the sense that everybody knows how to run for Congress or should run for Congress.
Matter of fact, sometimes young people come to me and they say, yeah, I want to do what you do and I want to run for Congress.
I say, no!
Do that!
It's advising, if that's what you really want, it's the first temptation, what do I need to do to get that?
But you know, those crowds really impressed me too.
Jeff Frazee actually was my staff person at the congressional office, and then he got YAL started.
And I was in a crowd like that, and I was talking to Jeff, I said, the one thing about YAL, because they, I think the college kids get a bum rap, and I think some of them deserve it.
It depends on what university.
But I said, I see young people like this.
This is the cream of the crop.
They care about finding out the truth.
And I said, but what really impresses me, I said, is they come in and they're well-dressed.
Yeah.
They don't come across – they don't have – they're not sloppy, which is their libertarian right to do whatever you want.
But you can also have some rules on private organization.
I said, it's almost like they have a dress code.
And Jeff smiled.
He says, I do.
No.
No, they fully encouraged them.
You know, I bet you saw some kids in there, young people with shirts and ties and the girls dressed up.
I think, you know, people should be, and you were uplifted from this.
I really was.
That is a great story.
It is.
It gives me hope.
It gives me hope for our future.
Like you said, college kids get a bum rap.
I think that the fact that basic civics, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are not a focus in our education system is a huge part of the problem.
We have people graduating from high school and going into college without any of those basic understandings or appreciations.
These kids proved the opposite.
Even if they are not yet the majority, these are our leaders of today and tomorrow.
Like you said, maybe some will run for Congress, maybe others won't, some shouldn't.
I have found that those who are Super, super, super eager to run for Congress maybe aren't the right ones and the ones who are kind of the unwilling people running for Congress but who are doing so as a call to duty are often the right ones who are protected from getting sucked into the swamp.
Regardless, as you said, I could not agree more.
There are so many ways for every one of us to be active, and that was much of my message to them.
Is to use your voice, be a voice for truth, be a voice for freedom and liberty, and stand up for our Constitution, because that's what our country really, really needs most right now.
Great advice.
It's so good to talk to you, Ron.
I hope we get to talk again soon.
And I'm in touch with your team as well.
I was not able to make it to your last conference in D.C., but I'm going to find a way to you.
I'm going to find my way to you there in Texas or D.C. or somewhere because I want to come and visit with you.
That would be great.
You know, if you're getting over this way, we can get you moved around when you're in the 48th.
All right.
And there's people who have offered to help.
And sometimes the whole way is a little more difficult.
Keep us up to date on the schedule and maybe we can get together.
Of course, we have the function in November that we're working on right now.
But Tulsi, thank you very much for having me on your program.
Thank you, Ron.
It's so good to see you and be safe and be well.
Thank you.
I feel like this conversation with Ron Paul could have gone on for hours.
What that man has been through, the battles that he has fought on the floor of Congress and in the marketplace of ideas in our society, frankly, there's nobody like him.
He wrote in his book called Liberty Defined that war feeds the growth of the state.
The state is nourished on the liberties of the people.
James Madison said, of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded.
History supports both of these statements.
The Espionage Act was passed in the height of World War I.
The Patriot Act was passed in the wake of 9-11, two of the most corrosive anti-constitutional pieces of legislation in U.S. history, both grossly violating our fundamental civil liberties and both passed in the fog of war where no one dares to question both grossly violating our fundamental civil liberties and both passed in the fog of war where no one dares to question the wisdom or intentions
So instead, too many are intimidated into silence, even people who hold high titles and sit in positions of power.
They cower in fear.
In the name of patriotism, we become less free when we have leaders who don't care to protect our freedom.
Benjamin Franklin once said, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Our founding fathers weren't perfect, but they had a powerful vision.
There was a lot that they understood that seems to be lost on too many of our leaders today.
Maybe it was because in their lifetimes they truly lived and understood what it meant to not be free.
They understood firsthand for themselves and their families what was at stake.
They knew what they were fighting for.
We need to understand what's at stake right now.
For every one of us.
This is not someone else's problem.
We have to make sure that our voices are heard.
We have to stand up to protect our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution.
We have to stand up and protect our civil liberties.
We need to stand up and to protect the foundation of this country.
Inspired by the vision our founders had for us, not only for today, for our families, for our lives and our freedoms, but for those who will come after us so that they will still know what it means to live free in America.
Thank you so much for spending your time with us today.
I look forward to seeing you and talking to you next week.
▲
Export Selection