A (3:06)

Yeah. And you did foreign policy on the Hill, so that must have been a lonely job being a Republican, talking about non interventionism, particularly at that time. That was not today. You would have more friends on the Hill, probably.

B (3:20)

Maybe. I mean, I did. Well, I did foreign policy, I did. I did military, I did intel, I did immigration. So I had all the bad stuff, the hard stuff. But at the time, yeah, it was right after 9 11. In fact, when 911 happened, I was waiting for my job and I thought, I probably won't get it now because the guy's not going to want to leave. But it was hard because nobody wanted to hear about restraint at that time. Nobody wanted to hear about, hey, hang on a minute, maybe this Patriot act thing is not a great idea. Maybe they're going to be spying on us instead of the bad guys like they promised. And so there was that. And then there was the run up to the Iraq war. Nobody wanted to hear Ron Paul saying, you know what, this smells fishy. I know. These weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't sound right to me. It's not going to happen. Nobody wanted. It was basically get with the program. And so we had a lot of allies on the Hill, but because probably because it was George W. Bush and the presidency, we found that we had some progressive allies. And at the time we thought we were allied on the issues. It turns out for all but a few of them, it was simply because there was an R in the seat and not a D in the seat. We found out when Obama came and was doing the same thing, that if it was a D doing it was okay. But nevertheless, at the time we took it where we could get it. You know, we took it where it was possible. And there were great conservative Republicans like John Duncan Jr. From Tennessee, who was there, an old right conservative. So there was that coalition that we built.

A (4:42)

Yeah, the Pat Buchanan wing.

B (4:43)

Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, pretty much that.

A (4:45)

Yeah. So Thomas Massie has a cool way of explaining how partisanship works because he says, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue. And the difference is a partisan will always fall in line. So if your president is doing the bad thing, you're going to find a rationale to just support him regardless of what you had said when the previous president was doing it. But if you're an ideologue, you have a set of principles and you try to behave consistent with those principles. And that means that you can in fact work with Dennis Kucinich, who's on the other side, who also has a set of principles. And you saw that a lot when Congressman Paul was on the Hill. He found people on the left that seemed pretty considered like Dennis Kucinich. I think you correct me if I'm wrong, but he was saying the same thing when Obama was doing it.

B (5:45)

Yes, he was. Yeah, he was one of the ones. He's on our board, actually, at the Ron Paul Institute. And he's one of the few that were like that. And there were a few of them that were like that. I mean, that's an excellent point. Because if you're a partisan, you only care about winning. It doesn't matter. Nothing else matters but winning. If you're an ideologue, well, you're concerned about the philosophy and pushing the philosophy forward regardless. And so when Dr. Paul is meeting with someone like Dennis Kucinich and they're talking about ending war, they don't devolve into a discussion of single payer health care because they both know that they're not going to agree. So you just stay away from these areas and you focus on the matter at hand. And that's so important in coalition building.

A (6:22)

So remind people the timeline. When did Ron Paul leave the House and when were his presidential runs and how did that all fit together?

B (6:31)

Well, it was very strange because, you know, we were sort of a quirky congressional office, you know, and people may not understand, but certainly in Ron Paul's congressional office we were all very ideologically motivated. We knew all of the precepts of the philosophy and we were sort of like a mini think tank. But we were kind of the old, you know, 70s cutlass Sierra kind of thing. You know, we weren't a fancy shiny car because we were, you know, we were in the back room in a back closet in a smelly area. And so when the 08, when the 0708 campaign took off, it, to be honest, it sort of felt like our spouse went and got a mistress because all of a sudden there was a shiny, there was money coming in, there was glamour, there was glitz, there were celebrities, you know, and here we were back in our Cutlass Sierra, you know, thinking this isn't fair, this isn't Very fun. But of course, you know, we did obviously enjoy seeing him get his day in the sun. But that was 07 and 08. And Kent Snyder, who then ran his outside group, his C4 outside group, the Liberty Committee, had really, to be honest, drug him, kicking and screaming into running for President. He did not want to do it. Kent promised him, look, you won't have to do anything. Just go out and make a couple speeches and we'll raise a, a little bit of money and you'll say that you did it. And little did he know, little did Kent know that it took off the way it did, because the nation was hungry for just a person who told the truth, simply told the truth.

A (7:59)

So as someone who's an insider, I gave a short talk at Dr. Paul's 90th birthday party. Just one of my bucket list things to do. And I've developed this theory over the years that's sort of informed but kind of conjecture that Dr. Paul didn't have any. And he sort of reaffirmed this when I was just talking to him. He didn't really have any idea that this thing could explode like that. But what he was doing is he wasn't running for president thinking, I'm going to win the presidency and then I'm going to fill the cabinet with libertarians. He was thinking that presidential politics is a cultural soapbox where I can get a bigger stage and a bigger megaphone to talk about these ideas I'm passionate about. And it just so happened to happen at the same time that social media became a meaningful thing. Do you think that's. Is that credible?

B (8:50)

I think it's absolutely credible. And, you know, he benefited greatly by the fact that there were some very innovative people involved in his campaign that were doing things that no one had done before. Raising money online, the famous money bomb. Nobody believed that he could have raised how much he raised that day. And of course he tells the story. And I'm absolutely certain that his true and accurate, that he was approached after he raised that amount of money. All of a sudden, the other members of Congress who would never give him the time of day, they came up to him and said, so how do you do this thing? You know, and they don't, they don't realize that it wasn't the innovation, the technology was great, but it was the idea that motivated people to give them money. They didn't want that part, they just wanted the money part.

A (9:29)

Yeah, I was going to say like. And Dr. Paul acknowledges this, it's the authenticity of having a set of beliefs and having advocated consistently on those beliefs and being willing to tell the truth even when it's super uncomfortable. That's the secret to the sauce. And then you can overlay social media and technology and all that other stuff on top of it. But if you don't have the first thing, you're not going to get the.

B (9:54)

Second thing that is, but also the skeleton of it is the work ethic. And even before any of that is Dr. Paul's work ethic. And that's something that we reckon, I even recognize it now. He turned 90. We tried to tell him to slow down a little bit. We don't have to. Just today he was going to have a talk with you all and I tried to convince him, let's just do one topic for the show today. And he feels like he's not giving the audience enough if he doesn't do two or three. And he's always been like that from back when he started delivering milk at like age 5 or something. It was all about the work ethic. That's the background, that's the backbone. And then you build all of these other things on it. It's very important. He's never rested on his laurels. He's never thought, okay, well I did that. I can take a breather. It's always the opposite. How can I work more? How can I do. He's at a. He's almost in a race, you know.

A (10:41)

Yeah. Thank you for joining me today on.

C (10:44)

Kibbe on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every week my organization, Free the People, partners with Blaze TV to bring you this show. My guests bring smart perspective on everything from current events to timeless philosophical debates. If you like what you hear, go to freethepeople.org kol and support Kibbe on Liberty so we can continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now let's get back to it.

A (11:14)

So speaking of not resting on his laurels, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity was created right after he left the Hill. What's the lineage?

B (11:25)

Yeah, I think that Congress, I forget the number of Congress. It was, it ended in January and I think we started in April with an event at the Capitol Hill Club. And really sort of the intellectual origin of the Ron Paul Institute, a lot of people mistakenly think it's a libertarian think tank. It isn't. The sort of, the philosophical origin of it was this meeting he had after the 2008 campaign with the candidates of the minor so called minor parties. It was the Green Party. It was Ralph Nader. It was Cynthia McKinney. It was Chuck Baldwin, I think. Remind me of the Libertarian candidate. It was former congressman from Georgia.

A (12:03)

Oh, Barr.

B (12:04)

Yeah, Barr. He didn't show up at the last minute. But you talk about an ideological, very broad spectrum. But they agreed on a few very basic sets of principles, which is deficit spending is bad. And the progressives and conservatives, libertarians can agree on that. The Fed is bad, the Fed hurts the poor. If you're a progressive, the Fed facilitates war. And there were a couple of other ones. So those precepts were the origin of the Ron Paul Institute. And the way they were instrumentalized is what I did for Dr. Paul for many years on the Hill. I organized his Thursday lunches. And those lunches would bring in a speaker that Republican members were comfortable with, but who nevertheless were talking about the Iraq war, the warfare state, the neoconstruction. And so they would meet behind closed doors, they would eat a bunch of shrimp from the Gulf coast, and they would explain how they really feel when they're not on the floor. And we brought in great people. That's where we first met people like Colonel Doug McGregor, many people like that that came who were comfortable with the other members. And so that was the idea of bringing people together and a broad spectrum agreeing on a certain sense of principles. And that's what we've done since then. We've held, I think We've held about 19 conferences now since we started. And it's all about bringing people together, bringing great speakers together. We've had, you know, we've had Julian Assange speak at our event. We've had, of course, Colonel McGregor, we had RFK Jr. Speak at one of our conferences and so on. So great speakers, but bringing people together sort of in an analog way, an old fashioned way.

A (13:42)

I saw this argument, you guys just held an event a couple months ago out by Dulles Airport. And some of the social media chatter, they were complaining about somebody who wasn't libertarian enough. And you were explaining this, that this isn't a Libertarian gathering. This is trying to find this interesting coalition, common ground. And it's amazing that you guys were OG at that. I remember Ron Paul working with Bernie Sanders back when he was a House member. And perhaps more interesting, I feel like he's gone sort of establishment in his old age. And obviously Dennis Kucinich in the same way that Thomas Massie has worked with guys like Ro Khanna on defense authorization and all that kind of stuff. And it strikes me that that moment might be happening and maybe this is the optimistic half of me. But there's a lot of people that have come over from the left part of the second Trump coalition, red pilled former lefties that are, you know, some of them are now tweeting out Austrian economists. And they're looking, they're, you know, and they, they, they did coalesce with Trump this time, but I, I think that coalition might take on a life of its own. Have you, have you thought about the potential of building that coalition that's in large part driven by disaffection with left wing authoritarianism?

B (15:12)

Yeah, I think it's definitely there. And I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about libertarianism. Of course, there are as many types of libertarianism as there are libertarians. And three in a room would have four different ideologies. We all know that. But the fact is it offers, I think, in my opinion, a solution to are you left or are you right? It's more of a pragmatic, you know, driven philosophy. And I think to the extent that we can explain, the Fed, for example, is a great tool that we can use to talk to the left and the right and progressives about how it destroys this country. You know, and I think there is an opportunity. I think if you look at the polls, you do see that there's a real disaffection for President Trump. People are disillusioned with what he's done so far. And I think that gives. And people are also, by the way, at the same time, very happy nationwide with someone like Thomas Massie. And he put up something on X the other day about where his donations are coming from. And it's broadly spread throughout the country. And these are small, low dollar donations. So his popularity is nationwide. He's become a national figure now. And Trump doesn't realize by attacking him, he's actually helping Thomas Massey become a national figure. I mean, God willing, maybe, you know, it would propel him into a presidential race. I don't think he would want to do that, but it certainly could.

A (16:34)

Yeah, well, it'll be very Ron Paul of him to get forced into running for president. He would have to be forced against his personal wishes. But yeah, every time Trump mean tweets him or whatever you call a truth, I don't know what those, what they call those things, but he writes a mean post and Thomas retweets it and says, they're after me, give me money. It's like a money bomb all over again. Right? And it does, it builds him. I mean, obviously he has to survive this attack. And there's millions of dollars being spent against Thomas as we speak, but it elevates him in this national conversation. And one of the things that did that, and this goes back to what I was talking to Dr. Paul about, like, how do you reach people where they live? And we're talking about how sports is a great platform. You know, you have Renato Moicano still trying to get his name right, saying, you know, read Ludwig von Mises.

B (17:40)

Yeah, that was great. With some F words in the middle of it.

A (17:43)

We're going to make a T shirt with the holes quote, but I love it. But, you know, same with Glenn Jacobs, AKA Kane. People care about sports sometimes. They care about politics, but they care about sports more. They care about cooking, they care about music. And, you know, Thomas has become this folk hero for being this off the grid, dorky libertarian engineer who built his own house. And that kind of thing is. It's like a coat of armor. It protects him from the kind of ridiculous caricatures that that super PAC running ads against him run. And this is your opportunity, since the director is in the room, to talk about off the Grid with Thomas Massie.

B (18:29)

Absolutely. Off the Grid is the greatest book. I mean, it turned him into. I knew Thomas Massey very well. He's on our board. He crashed the opening of the Ron Paul Institute, by the way. He had just been elected. He. He could have made a lot wiser decisions than to crash our opening, but that's how brave he was. But even knowing him, the film was magnificent because everyone wanted to be Thomas Massey. After watching this show, like, gosh, I want to build my own house. Gosh, I'm going to build a lake. I want to build these battery centers. I want to do all this stuff. It's like, I mean, sort of, maybe it's just mostly every guy's dream to be a Thomas Massie. Like, oh, he's over here, like, hewing rocks out of his ground and turning them into this beautiful castle. It was just too good to be true. And, you know, for compliments. Yeah, the cinematography was amazing, you know, and you felt like you were walking up that hill with him and, you know, and you felt happy that his fruit trees were doing well and everything. So it was. It was a tremendous. What he has is authenticity. And that's what all the people asking Dr. Paul, how do I get this money? What they don't understand, he has authenticity. And I think, in my opinion, both Dr. Paul and Mr. Massie have what the founders intended. They didn't go to Washington because they needed a job. They went to Washington with everything that they've learned and they're citizen legislators. Thomas Massie could leave tomorrow and nothing would be. His life would not be in any way detracted. He would go on to raise his trees and everything. He doesn't need this. I think that's what the framers intended for the people who represent us in Washington.

A (19:58)

Yeah, it's so obvious. The fearlessness of Thomas Massie or a Ron Paul is based on the fact that they don't need this job. And that's unusual for a politician. So when you get a threat from the President or you get a threat from AIPAC or some deep pocketed donor says I'm going to destroy you, their response is twofold. One, no, you're not. And two, if you do, might make me a happier man because I can go back and live the life that I was living before I got involved in politics. And that drives him crazy.

C (20:33)

How do I hurt that guy if.

A (20:35)

He can't be hurt?

B (20:36)

Yes. And the one thing, I don't know this exactly for Thomas Massie, but I suspect it's true. But the one thing that's certainly true about Dr. Paul is that people don't understand he is extremely competitive. Now he doesn't show it in sort of an immature way. He doesn't act like a jerk about it. But yes, he wants to win. He likes to win. He likes success and he achieves it through hard work rather than sleight of hand. But he's very competitive. I suspect that Thomas Massie is as well. So yes, they do want to continue doing what they do with the platform they have. But as you say, they're not going to jump off a cliff if it's taken from them.

A (21:10)

Well, part of that competitiveness is why they came here. It doesn't make any sense to sell out your principles to win because that's not winning, that's actually losing.

B (21:19)

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly it. Yeah.

A (21:23)

Let's talk about a couple things. We're going to do a quick show because I got to get to the airport. But let's talk about a couple things in the news. The government is shut down. No one seems to notice. And it seems to me that the only reason that the government is still shut down is that the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson is scared to death that Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna finally have 218 votes to do their discharge petition. What's your read on what's going on?

B (21:53)

I think that Certainly is a factor. But I mean, this is another place where Massie was right. I mean, Speaker Johnson has not been able to serve as a proper speaker since the beginning. We thought it would, we thought it couldn't possibly get worse, but it has gotten worse. There's no return to regular order, which is what Thomas Massie always talks about. It is so important. The lack of regular order. Guts the power of Congress. You know, the, the framers of the Constitution intended Congress to be the most powerful branch. They could nullify the other two branches if they needed to, but they've lost all of their authority and power has been concentrated into the very, very top of the House. When we had regular order, for the most part, when Dr. Paul was in, if it was an appropriations bill, we could come to Dr. Paul and say, hey, let's do an amendment to cut this out of here and then we can get a bunch of people to go to the floor and talk about the bill and, and maybe we'll even get a vote and get it cut. You can't do that. Now when you roll everything into an omnibus bill and you either vote for it or you are. What did he call? He called him a wacko. Trump called him. Or you're a wacko. You know, so Congress is superfluous. I think that's why it continues to lose decorum over and over. And I'm the last person, you know who believes it's some sort of a sacred thing. But I do miss the idea of there being some decorum there. So Speaker Johnson has not been able. He's been so distracted by other things, by every sort of, you know, every sort of moving part, that he's not able to simply do what you're supposed to do, which is pass appropriations bills.

C (23:25)

If you made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Key Beyond Liberty is just one of the amazing products we create at Free the People. We tell emotionally compelling stories and produce educational videos for the Liberty Curious. Our award winning documentaries personalize all things liberty, independence, creativity, hard work, integrity and perseverance. After the show, check out our work@freethepeople.org and if you like what you see, donate to support what we do. That's freethepeople.org now back to the show.

A (24:03)

I guess that the reason Trump endorsed him is precisely for that reason. He's, he's just, he's kind of a yes man. And for reasons I can't fully understand unless it's what the deep state wants, these omnibus bills are Filled with everything. Conservative Republicans and Tea Party Republicans and Ron Paul Republicans and, you know, rank and file Republicans. It's filled with all that stuff that they say they're against. And Thomas keeps going to social media and saying, you talk about these rescissions that Rand Paul fought so hard for. You talk about the Doge Commission and all these things, and you talk about USAID and defunding NPR and all that stuff. As long as that omnibus is passed at Biden levels, plus, because the Democrats are going to insist on more, you're not doing anything. It's all theater. And it's going to be wildly disappointing when people discover all that stuff they said they did. They didn't do it at all.

B (25:02)

Yeah, it is all theater. And I mean, they had the. This was the best opportunity that I can remember in my adult life, I think, to actually cut government. The momentum was there, the popularity was there. People wanted those to be successful. But when they delivered all this, rather than taking the momentum further, Congress just simply punted. I mean, they just fell asleep. They didn't care. They didn't want to cut government. And I'm suspicious that even the USAID cuts aren't actually USAID aid cuts. You know, we have Marco Rubio in there who's supposedly, you know, pushing the levers. I don't trust him with any of that power. He's certainly not about to give up the ability to overthrow governments overseas, you know, and put on color revolutions and overthrow Venezuela, whatever he wants to do. So I, I'm even suspicious of that. So that's really been the biggest disappointment, I think, is, is the, the inability to, to just simply husband these things through.

A (25:52)

Yeah. Even if they are doing these things administratively through the agencies, the problem is that the next Democrat that takes control of the White House, and I have this wild theory that someday a Democrat might win the White House again, which apparently Republicans don't believe anymore.

B (26:09)

But never.

A (26:10)

It all comes back as long as the spending levels are maintained. So you can rearrange deck chairs. And maybe in a better way, you know, maybe Marco Rubio is rearranging the deck chairs at USAID in a better way. I'm skeptical too, but if he is, it all comes roaring back.

B (26:32)

Plus yeah, and the power of Doge in the beginning, I think, was it showed to the rest of America or a good portion of it what people like you and I and Ron Paul and others have believed for a long time, which is that the federal government is superfluous. You could go in there and fire half of the Department of Education. And nobody would know the difference because there are people that are occupying chairs that do absolutely nothing all day long, and they have very long careers, they have very nice pensions, they have all their health care. Everything that middle America needs but doesn't get, they have it and nobody notices when they're gone. And so a president who really believed in that could have taken that momentum and really affected a revolution. Unfortunately, it just sort of dropped in the pond.

A (27:14)

Yeah. I'm going to pull up the tweet, the mean tweet about Rand Paul. Why is Trump suddenly mad at Rand? Because they've had a working relationship and Rand stood up for him during Russiagate and other very important times when most rank and file Republicans were hiding from the controversy. Why suddenly have the gloves come off in your mind?

B (27:40)

Yeah, I mean, you're right. I mean, Rand started out sort of insulting president, then candidate Trump in 15 before the 16 election. I think Rand soon realized that wasn't a productive way of having a relationship. And I think they mended their ways after Trump was elected and they worked together very well and they did it without Rand having to compromise on any of his principles. So as to what has happened now, I don't exactly know. I mean, I think Trump has. Trump's position has hardened. Trump's position has hardened his personal. In my opinion, I think a lot of people noticing this, his personal position has hardened his sort of sense that. Don't. You don't dare insult me. You know, this sort of self aggrandizement, it was sort of a problem in the first, but we kind of wrote it off. Now it seems a lot worse. This is the best. You know, it took me 3,000 years to do this. This is the greatest missile, you know, I've solved. I've made peace and 400 countries and he names countries that have never been at war with each other. So I think there's a little bit of that now that's in his mind. And he sees someone like Rand and he sees someone like Thomas Massie who are just not going to bow. They're not going to vote for the big beautiful bill, no matter what you do. And he can't stand that. He wants more people like the European Union leaders or the leaders. You saw the whole thing where they're sitting like little puppy dogs. Exactly what Putin predicted, by the way, that they would sit there and wag their tails, which they actually did. He likes that, but I think at the same time it disgusts him. You know what I mean? He likes Being the bully. He likes the fact that they say how high? When he says jump. But he's disgusted by that. And I think the only people that aren't doing that that he genuinely does respect, even though he's acting disrespectfully, would be Massey, would be Paul. And I do believe also Vladimir Putin, because I think he sees the obsequiousness of. Of a Zelenskyy who comes in, and he's disgusted by it. You see him coming here begging with your hand out, and I don't think that his admiration for Putin is not what the left was saying in 16, but simply the fact that Putin has principles. I'm not going to stop the war because you said I should. These are the things we need to achieve, and when they're achieved, the war will be over. And I think he admires that even as it frustrates him.

A (29:59)

Yeah, yeah. He's. He likes. He likes tough guys.

B (30:01)

Yeah, he likes them, but they piss. Can I say I can't. They tick him off.

A (30:05)

Yeah. No, we can say. We say everything on this show, by the way.

B (30:09)

Okay. I never know.

A (30:10)

I try to, but I have to. I have to read this quote because it's. It's classic Trump. It's kind of fun. Whatever happened to Senator? Senator is in danger quotes Rand Paul. Senator Rand Paul, he was never great, but he went really bad. I got him elected twice in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky. Rand Paul got elected long before Trump was politically active. So there's that. And he's a nasty little guy. And what's funny about it is I don't know why he's doing it, because I think he knows that doesn't work on Rand. Yeah, that's what's mystifying. And it's. It is. I can speak from personal experience, watching my community online. It pisses off people that would otherwise be supporting him, because the Rand Paul wing of the coalition, you know, there's the Maha wing, and obviously Rand's taking a real lead on pulling Anthony Fauci to justice, and it alienates key parts of his coalition right before midterm election, where the incumbent always gets their heads handed to them. So I don't quite get the 3D chess that's being played here.

B (31:24)

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all. And I mean, reading, I think we sort of both enjoy it, but when you take a step back, I felt like I was in junior high. You know, that's the kind of thing you would write in junior high. You know, it doesn't seem to. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of a president. Maybe we have. Our expectations are too high.

A (31:43)

Yeah, I think. I mean, I haven't thought about this. It's been a long time since I've done serious budget process stuff, which is what I did when I worked on the Hill. But I suspect this attack has something to do with the government shutdown and how they pulled together enough votes to get out of it. But I don't know. But it also has to do with Rand Paul's critique of tariffs is just. They're just taxes. Sorry. It's a fact. And most recently, he's been quite critical of the president, sort of unilaterally blowing boats out of the waters of Venezuela. What's your take on that?

B (32:29)

Yeah, I mean that really. I can use the word now pisses Trump off that anyone would dare, a Republican would dare to criticize something that is objectively. It's a war crime. We may not love international law, but there's a reason we try to adhere to it. And that's another thing. And you know, so far as we speak, there have been seven boats that have been blown out of the water. Upwards of 30 people have been murdered. It's extrajudicial murder. Even if they were bringing drugs into the United States, that is not a capital offense. You do not get the death penalty for it. We do have a system that doesn't just apply to American citizens. That's why the framers wrote it the way they did. Persons rather than citizens, that everyone enjoys the benefits of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. And you're innocent until proven guilty and you have due process. You don't just blow boats out of the water. And no matter how much we, these, the MAGA people may not like drug runners, you can't simply blow up people. We don't know who they are. And I've argued in the past it would actually be better PR for him to simply interdict these boats and show all the drugs they're bringing in. Just line them up and line these guys up there and show them this is the crap that's coming in this country. If that's what you want to do. It makes no sense to blow them out of the water. It's a terrible look for the United States. Republicans were furious when Obama was blowing Americans up with drones overseas argument. You know, I mean, so now that it's. The shoes on the other foot is perfectly fine. It's insane. And what this is is Marco Rubio's desire for a revolution in Venezuela, something he tried in the last Trump administration with few allies, and it turned into a farce, the Juan Guaido farce. Well, this time they used the same elements. Right? The Speedboats are the WMDs. This is Saddam's WMDs. And this person, this Nobel Prize Machado, now she's going to be instrumentation of this regime change waiting in the wings. And this is the intent. So it's all part of this. And so Rand Paul, I suspect, understands this and sees very well what's happening. And he knows by experience that this will be a disaster. This will be another Libya. And it's bad enough to have Libya in Libya. We don't want to have Libya, you know, just a few hundred miles off of our coast or however far it is.

A (34:46)

Yeah, yeah. So talk about the Ron Paul reports and how people watch your show.

B (34:54)

The Rumpel Liberty Report is every Monday through Friday at noon Eastern time, live for the moment at Rumble. But we've been doing it for over 10 years now. And when we started out, nobody had a podcast. Very few people. I know that you did. But now it's sort of the last thing the world needs is another podcast. But we've gone through looking over the news and trying to filter it through the Ron Paul lens. And oftentimes I think when we hit the right note, it's when the Rs are saying this and the Ds are saying this and they're both wrong. And we can sort of Ron Paulize it, run it through the Ron Paul washing machine and explain why there's actually a different solution that works best. And there are ebbs and flows. I mean, I'll be very honest with you, with Trump, right now, our numbers are lower because people are frustrated. They don't like the fact that we're criticizing. We try not to criticize. We try to look for positive things. We're not against Trump, but when he does dumb things, we have to call it out.

A (35:48)

Yeah, yeah. What about the institute? What are the other projects of the Institute?

B (35:52)

Well, one of the things, besides our conferences, I said we've done 19, now we have one of the projects. I'm really happiest about the Ron Paul Scholar seminar. And this is where we bring upper division undergrads and grad students at the moment for sort of a one day boot camp with professors, professors of practice, who walk them through. And they're not all people that want to go into politics. In fact, most of them want to go into medicine or law or anything else. But to sort of unlearn what they're learning in grad school or undergrad. And we've had some great successes. TJ Roberts is now a state representative in Kentucky. He was in our first class of Ron Paul Scholars. And we bring them on board for a one day seminar. They attend the D.C. conference afterward. And then they become sort of the important cadres of the Future Freedom movement. They keep in touch. They're having podcasts and doing these. So these are the sort of things we want to grow. We want to. It's great to be an activist, but you have to be well informed before you can go on and pass those things on.

A (36:52)

So if people want to donate or get involved or sign up, where do they go?

B (36:56)

Ronpaulinstitute.org People can sign up and subscribe for free, knowing in confidence that your name will not go anywhere beyond us. I hate that when you sign up for one thing and you get all kinds of crazy stuff. We never, ever will do that. And we. You're here in our office and I joked about it on the email yesterday, our luxurious accommodations. Yes, we don't waste a dime. I mean, we're living in the 70s. We're living. We're living. These aren't shag rugs, but they may as well be.

A (37:22)

So I think if you hold on long enough, the dark paneling is coming back.

B (37:26)

I think it is, actually. It sort of feels the kids are going to be hanging out in here, you know, it's going to be the place.

A (37:32)

Daniel, thank you so much for your time.

B (37:34)

Thank you, Matt.

C (37:36)

Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about free the people, go to freethepeople.org.