[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Will you take a bribe? Just leave me the heck alone. Everything is a national security risk. Not.
[00:00:27] Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. I'm Sam Bushman. Hard-hitting news the network's reviews to use starts now. Lowell Nelson, CampaignForLiberty.org with me. Welcome to the show, sir. Uh-oh. We got Lowell breaking up right the second we're ready to go. Shoot, we'll work on that. In the meantime, though, Lowell Nelson, folks, is with Campaign for Liberty, if you're new to the show.
[00:00:56] CampaignForLiberty.org, RonPaulInstitute.org are kind of the websites for Lowell. And he started out as the interim director, but he's been that way for so long. He's just the, really the field agent, whatever you want to call it, the director in the state of Utah for Campaign for Liberty. And Campaign for Liberty has been around for a long time, ever since Rand Paul ran for president the second time go-around. Or Ron Paul, I'm sorry, Ron. And very good stuff. Does a great job.
[00:01:25] They're one of the great organizations that stand tall for the sacred cause of liberty all the time. They don't compromise on issues. They stand up. I believe that the Campaign for Liberty organization is just tremendous. And they've got chapters on colleges for Young Americans for Liberty, a partner organization. They just do a phenomenal job. So, Lowell, President Trump bribes the people. This is not good, sir.
[00:01:53] Because the problem that I have with this is, you know, the Democrats have always been the socialism people. They've always wanted socialism or handouts or this or that. And now what Trump's really saying is, we're fine with socialism as long as it's Republican style. As long as it has an elephant or an R on it, then socialism is fine. Otherwise, socialism is bad. And I find this just objectionable, to say the least. Lowell? Yeah, well, you know, some commentators, they've been expressed their outrage over this attempt to bribe voters, too.
[00:02:22] But Ron Paul writes this. He says, quote, These commentators have tended to ignore the fact that since the rise of the welfare-warfare regulatory state, most political campaigns are little more than legalized bribery. How else would you describe politicians who court support for the military-industrial complex with promise to deliver endless wars financed by ever-increasing Pentagon spending?
[00:02:48] Or court votes of farmers with promises of ever-increasing farm subsidies? Or courting votes of senior citizens with promises concerning Social Security and Medicare? Or promise to those whose standard of living and prospect for economic advancement are harmed by the Federal Reserve's destruction of the dollar that government will take care of them with food stamps, Medicaid, and government-subsidized housing?
[00:03:14] This system of legalized bribery makes it impossible to make real spending cuts because every item in the federal budget has a constituency behind it. Politicians are convinced that their electoral success depends on them protecting this spending. End of quote. And so there in a nutshell, Sam, Ron Paul put this in spades. I mean, they're complaining about Trump when in reality their own people from both parties
[00:03:44] have been doing this for decades. You know, pulling money out of the public treasury to spend and to lavish on their own constituencies. It's been going on so long we don't even realize that we're doing it, I think. Sam? And oftentimes the Democrats do it blatantly in your face. The Republicans are a little bit more careful about how they word it or how they kind of back into it or whatever else.
[00:04:11] And so that's kind of one of the differences where people don't understand. And it is a bribe. And I personally want to take it a step further, Lowell. I'm convinced it's vote fraud. Yeah. Because you're explaining the voters. Because you're telling the voters you're going to give them something that you, because you're already in power, have the ability to, quote, give. But yet the other party running against you doesn't have that ability to provide that. Right? They can make the same promises, though. And that's what they do.
[00:04:41] But the difference is one can literally deliver. The other one may or may not be able to deliver. Right? So they're saying, if you elect me, then I'll do this. Well, the other party can say the same thing, but one has the incumbency power. Sure. Mm-hmm. So I find it quite different in an unlevel playing field, if you will.
[00:05:04] Both parties do this so much that, I mean, it swings back and forth like a pendulum from the red party to the blue party and back to the red party and back and forth, back and forth. But the spending never stops. I mean, they continue to pull money out of the Treasury to lavish on their constituencies, and that's the problem. This is the welfare state. We got ourselves into it. It's going to be very, very difficult to get ourselves out because we are hooked on the money.
[00:05:34] Collectively speaking, not you and me, Sam, but the people are hooked on the money. The states are hooked on the money they get from the feds, and the people, like, you know, they get food stamps and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. They're hooked on that. So it's very, very tough. And really, the only way we get out of it, probably, is the destruction of the dollar. I mean, that's probably the only way. I don't know. But Ron Paul has the answer, and you and I know what that answer is, and it's to follow the Constitution, right? Stop the war.
[00:06:03] Stop the welfare. Shut down the unconstitutional federal agencies. Return charitable giving to local churches, communities, and charities. And I love the way he ends his column here, Sam. He says, Ron Paul says, we should bribe the voters with the promise of peace, prosperity, and liberty. Sam? Amen. I agree with that. And here's the point that I'm making. Let's just say that these two parties can deliver those things. One has incumbent status. The other doesn't.
[00:06:33] But a third party, though, doesn't get matching funds, doesn't give all these other protections, making that promise even a greater special privilege to the two parties or to those who really have an opportunity to win. If I'm on a third party or I run independent and I don't get matching funds, I'm not allowed in the debates. I got all these restrictions that I can't get on the ballot in all 50 states. And so you lock me, lock me, lock me down. And then you start adding, I'll give everybody a bag of cotton candy. And I can't offer that bag of cotton candy because I'll never get there.
[00:07:02] Yeah, I can make those promises. But it's a long-shot promise, to say the least. It's not the same. And that's why I say that it's vote fraud, Lowell. Yeah, yeah. Well, that's a good point, a good observation about that, Sam. I won't disagree with you on that one. I believe in the promise of peace, prosperity, and liberty, ladies and gentlemen, because that's what they should be promising. That's what the supreme law of the land promises.
[00:07:26] And that's what literally all Americans can promise, fidelity to one another regarding elected or not. And I think that's critical, ladies and gentlemen. And they also want you to believe when they're in power that whatever they do is right. And if you question it, it's just a matter of national security. So it's classified. And we really can't discuss that with you. I'm sorry, Lowell. Well, that's what they do, national security.
[00:07:52] That's become the government's all-purpose permission slip to behave badly. That's the words of John Anisha Whitehead, who put a great column here at RonPaulInstitute.org. They have become the magic words that can make constitutional restraints disappear. Call something a matter of national security, and the normal rules start disappearing. Courts defer, Congress retreats, secrecy expands, and executive power grows. End of quote.
[00:08:22] That game is not a new one, though. I mean, it's not just Trump's administration. Nixon did this. Bush did it. Obama, Biden, and Trump have done it. For example, Trump won more- And they are, by the way, in every administration seems to be increasingly doing it, Lowell. Yeah, that's the thing. You know, the power of the president has just grown way beyond. I mean, we do have an elected monarch. I mean, no, we didn't want any kings on this land, but we definitely have an elected king
[00:08:51] running the show here in this country. And it's been happening for several decades, quite a few decades, in fact. But it's because of our weak-kneed, yellow-bellied Congress that won't restrain them. I mean- And let me give you an interesting comparison. I just saw a movie that's in theaters. It's called Daniel. And it's about King Nebuchadnezzar and how evil he was. And, you know, the movie kind of makes him like a Satan character, which is pretty much true.
[00:09:19] But what was interesting is in that movie, King Nebuchadnezzar, that was the force guy. That's why they compared him to Satan. He forced everybody to bow down and worship the idol. And then, of course, you know, Meshach, Shadrach, Medigo wouldn't do so. So they got thrown in the fiery furnace. Anyway, it's about that whole story. But the reason that I digress to that is because one of the things that Nebuchadnezzar said is, We're in the golden age. We're in the golden age. And it's fascinating. Trump's using the same terms.
[00:09:47] Well, yeah, it sounds like the pride before the fall, if you ask me. Pride goeth before the fall. And, you know, Congress, they've repeatedly shrunk from their constitutional duty to restrain the president. And when the president arrogates authority to himself that he does not have, that the states did not vest in him via the Constitution, then it's up to the courts and to Congress to restrain the president. But they're not doing that.
[00:10:16] And that's what brings us to the second point in this column by the Whiteheads, which is posted at RonPaulInstitute.org. And the point is this, quote, a government that can declare anything a national security concern can eventually declare anyone a national security threat. Because the question is no longer merely what constitutes a threat. It is who gets to decide who is a threat. Who decides who is an enemy? Who decides who is dangerous?
[00:10:47] End of quote. I mean, those are important questions. Well, and the answer is Donald is doing that right now. He's saying, oh, man, we can't give these networks access to the White House. They're a security threat. He's already saying that right now. Yeah. And that's the way. He's coloring outside the lines just to get his way. And so they can call you a national security threat, Sam, and have you banned, you know, from the White House. And have you banned from public radio, you know, whatever.
[00:11:16] And so it's a big, big problem. Yeah, kind of like the Ten Commandments. You know, if you put them up, people might actually see them and read them and obey them. And if you put Sam up there, then people might actually listen and think, oh, my gosh, and do some research and find out constitutionally. The folks on Liberty Roundtable Live and Sam Bushman, they're correct. You know, it's a similar reality. And that's the problem. Yeah, and a lot of this has happened since 9-11, really.
[00:11:40] You've got the Patriot Act, the National Homeland Security Act. You've got the surveillance powers, government's definition of extremism and domestic terrorism, government's definition of Israeli – when you – anyway, when you called Israelis something –
[00:12:07] Yeah, you're a bigot, you're a hater, you're anti-Semitic, you're all these things. That's it, anti-Semitic. That's the big label they use. You've got normalization of the military detention authority. You've got torture in the name of national security. You've got the NSA, the fusion centers, the government watch lists, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, biometric surveillance, automatic license plate readers, flock cameras, drones, predictive police technology.
[00:12:37] And they're just getting started. They've even got systems that detect shots and where they came from and everything else in cities. We're just a modern society everywhere, folks. And it really makes you wonder, when will they just leave us alone, Lowell? Oh, man. What emerges is not merely a government capable of investigating crimes after they happen. We have a government increasingly capable of identifying people as potential threats before they have committed the crimes.
[00:13:07] And this is really the essence of pre-crime, which reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie called Minority Report. Very interesting movie. And basically, you substitute prediction for proof, suspicion for guilt, and risk assessment for due process. Where does that mindset lead? Well, you don't need evidence anymore, Sam, that a crime has been committed.
[00:13:28] You focus instead on the identification of people who might commit a crime instead of investigating wrongdoing. And so the whiteheads, they're saying this is how a free society becomes a suspect society. Well, I kind of think we're there. I mean, I really do. Once the government begins investigating people for what they think or what they say, instead of for what they do,
[00:13:53] then this distinction between protecting national security and policing dissent, yeah, becomes very, very thin. And that's what we've got today. And they're starting to use terms that move them closer to this in our society and give them, quote, carte blanche to do so. You know, a term called a hate crime. I don't know any crimes that are committed out of love, Lul, do you? No, I don't. Yeah, that's a good point.
[00:14:20] Every crime is a hate crime or every crime is a method of, you know, abuse to one another. You know, to me, it's not out of love. So every crime is wrong. But this idea that we're going to add a complication or greater penalty or whatever because of the thoughts of your heart or mind. Now, I get pre-intent or whatever, you know. But at the same time, if we're not very careful, we start to use these words pretty soon.
[00:14:50] It's like, yeah, it's not really a hate crime. It's just, well, you committed a constitutional crime. You interpret the Constitution differently than the president does. Therefore, you've committed constitutional treason. And that's kind of what Trump's saying now. He's saying it's treasonous for us to want to back out of the war or not support the war. It's treasonous for us to this and that. You know, everything that we do is, quote, treasonous nowadays. And so you use that word and you use hate crime and you use enemy combatant and you use.
[00:15:17] And every one of those are designed to divorce you from your God-given inalienable rights that the supreme law of the land and the proper rule of limited government should be upholding and protecting, not violating law. That's the point. Yeah. Yeah. You know, the funny thing about this, Sam, is that Abraham Lincoln, who thousands and I guess millions of people, you know, honor him like. I almost treat him like a god.
[00:15:39] Abraham Lincoln, he imprisoned like 10,000 people, journalists and newspaper men and so forth during the Civil War because they were critical of his policy. And here Trump takes out, you know, two or three newspapers, CNN and maybe a couple other. And everybody's saying he's such a bad dude. Well, yeah, Abraham Lincoln did this to thousands of people during the Civil War.
[00:16:03] And we still treat Abraham Lincoln like he's some wonderful, wonderful president. So anyway, I just thought the irony there was pretty, pretty interesting. But the bottom line, folks, is we need to stiffen our backbones, the backbones of our reps in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate so that they will restrain the president when he's acting like a monarch, like a king with unlimited power, which is what he's doing.
[00:16:32] I mean, Trump's done it, Biden's done it, Obama's done it, Bush, all of them. We need a strong Congress to hold into account and to restrain that power. Sam? Amen to that. And we really need to realize, folks, this is something serious. Whenever they want to restrict your freedom to report, to tell, to speak, to, you know, listen, to hear, to understand, whatever. You know, Donald Trump can say, well, I'm stopping fake news.
[00:17:01] Well, who decides what fake news is? I decide that this reporting is correct. Hey, does the government decide that for me or can I decide that for myself is the question. And diesel is one of those good examples, too. Diesel prices are out of this world. And, you know, Donald Trump's saying, well, maybe we ought to stop exports of diesel. Others are saying, well, that'll make matters worse. I think a healthy debate around this is important, Lowell. Well, and so that comes along. Doug Casey comes along.
[00:17:30] This article posted at LewRockwell.com with some really interesting observations about this situation. I mean, I didn't know half the stuff that he put in his column. Sam, but diesel provides 10 to 15 percent more energy than gasoline. I didn't know that. It allows roughly twice the compression ratio in the engine. I did know that because diesel ignites when it gets compressed.
[00:17:57] And so it has a compression ratio of about 20 to 1, whereas gasoline is like 10 to 1. And so these two factors make diesel fuel 25 percent more thermally efficient than gasoline, which is why trucks, tractors, locomotives, ships, and heavy equipment, they run on diesel. And it's also why diesel engines are heavier and more durable than gasoline engines,
[00:18:23] because they have to be built to withstand the greater compression and combustion pressures, you know, in the piston chamber there. And so then the third point he makes, diesel's flashpoint is higher than that of gasoline, and it gives off essentially no ignitable vapor, right? I mean, you can store diesel. You can transport diesel and store it more easily because it's not going to easily ignite. I mean, you have to compress it in order to ignite diesel.
[00:18:54] And fourth, diesel is a lubricant for an engine, while gasoline is a solvent that washes oil away. You know, I hadn't thought about that. I should have known that. But diesel is better for the engine because it lubricates the engine while it burns. Very interesting. And then finally, combustion is lean and efficient. Diesels emit fewer emissions than gas.
[00:19:19] And so, you know, that said, of course, Americans still prefer gasoline because it offers higher performance. But, you know, I just thought this was very interesting. This is why diesel is what moves the economy around the world. You know, you think about all the ships carrying goods across the oceans. You've got trucks carrying goods across the land masses. They do it on diesel.
[00:19:44] And that's why diesel is such an important component to our economy and to the world economy, really. And that's why these wars in Ukraine and Iran and the Middle East and now Yemen have become such a big, big problem because diesel, I mean, the crude oil is not getting to the refineries. So out of every three barrels that goes to refinery, two of those barrels,
[00:20:12] they can produce two barrels of gasoline and one barrel of diesel. And the problem now is not the absence of crude oil, Sam. It's the absence of refineries. You look at all the fineries. And the oil is not going to produce it is the problem. Do you think we ought to get rid of the export of oil or of diesel for a while? Should we stop exports? Well, I don't think so. But that's what Trump is. Yeah, but see, I don't think Trump has the authority to do that. No, he doesn't. I mean, if you have a... Wouldn't that be a law?
[00:20:41] Well, I mean, how can he command what a private company does? I mean, he shouldn't be able to do that, but he wants to ban the export of oil, ban the export of diesel. And if he does that, that will level out the price of diesel for a while here in the U.S. because we'll have more diesel than we need. But it's going to hurt Europe and other economies around the world. They're going to be...
[00:21:08] And they're going to know that the U.S., which has started these wars, basically, in Ukraine and the Middle East, and it's going to be very bad for the United States. What we should do is work on our refineries and start to use diesel more, and then eventually we could learn to use our own supply and demand and not be so dependent on the world import or export-wise. That's what we ought to do. What about these rare earth minerals? Now, Trump made a deal with Greenland, but is it as real as we think?
[00:21:37] And what's the deal with that loan? Yeah, there's a 1951 agreement that we've been living by for decades, and this agreement signed last week is very similar to the 1951 agreement, but there's a few key differences. And the biggest key difference really is the U.S. will have access to mineral resources in Greenland. They have a lot of these rare earth minerals that are so important to technology, to the growth of technology.
[00:22:06] And so that's really, you know, there are a couple other aspects to the agreement, but just know that we signed an agreement with Greenland and Denmark, basically, and non-NATO countries may not invest or build military installations there. The U.S. will build two additional military bases in addition to the one in northwest Greenland, and they'll be part of NATO, and we'll have access to the mineral resources there.
[00:22:32] So in a nutshell, we basically have Greenland helping us in the western hemisphere, Sam. So hopefully the Greenland deal is a deal respecting sovereignty, and if we really want Greenland and Greenland wants to be part of the United States, hopefully they can make that happen on a freedom to choose term self-determination for the Greenlanders. And I don't think Denmark should control Greenland, and I don't know that the United States should control Greenland. I think Greenland should be able to decide for itself.
[00:23:02] Does it want to be an independent country and partner with us? Does it want to become part of the United States? Does it want to stay part of Denmark? I think self-determination is the key here, Lowell. Yeah, I absolutely agree. That was the key fundamental principle here in the colonies, the way we wanted to determine our own destiny. And so that's why we broke from England and became America. Well, the Greenlanders, just like everybody else, just want to be left alone, Lowell. Just leave me the heck alone, would you please?
[00:23:33] And that's the libertarian principle is people just want to be left alone, don't pester. And that's what we do, Sam. You and I, we're not going to walk across the street and pester our neighbor and ask them to pay the bills that we incur. But that's what we ask government to do. And that's what Eric Peters in his column calls a profoundly morally schizophrenic mindset, right?
[00:24:01] When you won't go and ask your neighbor to pay your bills, but you will elect somebody so that the government can force your neighbor to pay your bills. That's the schizophrenic mindset, Sam, that Eric Peters brings out in his column, posted at BlueRockwell.com. Sam? It's like people get bold behind their keyboards on the Internet and say things they would never say to someone's face. We do the same thing. We would never come and steal from our neighbor directly by force or otherwise,
[00:24:28] but we're plenty happy to have government be the front man. It's wrong and it needs to stop. Lowell Nelson, CampaignForLiberty.org. Thank you so much, sir. You're welcome, Sam. Thanks for having me. There he goes. Always doing a phenomenal job. I'm Sam Bushman. God save our constitutional republic.