Welcome to Keep an Eye, Don't tread on anyone in the Libertarian Institute. Today, I am joined by Angela McArdle, the Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party. We're going to be talking about what the LP stands for along with the Rage Against the War Machine rally. Angela, tell us about this rally.
Hey, thanks for having me on. So you know February the beginning of this year the Libertarian party and the People's Party which is like a left wing populist group got together and held a big anti war rally And it was sort of the the flagship you know anti war movement like kick off we we we said you know what we want to reunite everybody. We want to get together, we want to kick off the the anti war
movement again. It seems like it's sort of fizzled out a little bit and everybody's off in their own corners. So we had a great rally. It was Memorial Day. I'm sorry, it was Presidents Day weekend at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC and we're doing it again. We're doing it again. Rage Against the War Machine. Two Point O is coming. Defeat the Deep State. And we're going to be bringing everybody together to to talk about the relationship between the Deep state and the war machine.
You were on the Joe Walsh podcast. I thought you did an excellent job there and he had, to my surprise actually said oh Oh no Angela, I'm anti war too with all the confidence in the world. So all right, here we are saying we're anti war and he's anti war along with Bill Kristol by the way who only supports interventions because those are going to, you know, stop future wars from coming to fruition. Help us narrow this down. What does it mean to be anti
war? So you know, from a libertarian perspective, I'm a I'm a non interventionist. It should be fairly simple, right? Like I don't want to wage war on other countries. The National Defense should literally be defensive and a lot of people split hairs over it and they say, well we gotta, you know, we gotta annihilate them before they annihilate us. From my perspective that has just not been found to be true.
We should have our troops here and they should only be reserved for an emergency imminent threat on US soil. That's what it means to be anti war from my perspective. One of the things that I learned from people like Thomas Sowell is it's not what should be done, but who should decide what is to be done so well. Yes, we both support, you know, defending the homeland from aggressors, both foreign and
domestic. Any idea that revolves around delegating this responsibility to politicians who face no consequence, basically no consequence at all for being wrong. And they're spending other people's money and they claim the right to conscript with the Selective Service Act, and they have access to a central bank. It seems like anyone who genuinely cares about National Defense would want politicians to be the very last people in line to be responsible for ushering in this alleged safety.
When it comes to alternatives to going to war, what are some things that come to mind as far as Could it be diplomacy? Could it be free trade? Could it be private defence? What do you think about in that case? I think diplomacy and free trade are are the two of the most critical things to to peaceful foreign policy and slowly removing yourself from entangling alliances as well.
It's a real mess how we're involved with NATO, you know the UN, although it's not as war mongering as NATO, it does present international entangling alliances and complications. Foreign aid, ending foreign aid is a really big one too. We should just not be involved in other countries military operations, as when we get rid of that we solve, I think, a lot
of these problems. I was fortunate enough to sit down with the campaign advisor of one of the Great China Hawks that is running as a Republican. And I said, why are you such a hawk on China? You admire Richard Nixon, who went to Beijing and shook hands with Chairman Mao Zedong. Are you telling me we can't shake hands with President Xi? There was a formal alliance with Joseph Stalin, whose crimes in Ukraine far exceeded Vladimir Putin.
Not that I'm a Putin apologist, but it's really incredible to say, All right, yeah, we can have a alliance with Stalin. We can be friends with Chairman Mao. Nixon also shook hands with Emperor Hirohito in the the 70s, who was the emperor of Japan during the Second World War. But, you know, when it comes to Putin, and she, of course we can't. Why is it that there's such a, there's such a dichotomy between who the elites, you know, claim to say is that is a a crazy psychopath who cannot be
negotiated with. And also, well, we're good friends with Mohammed bin Salomon in Saudi Arabia, but can you help us square that circle? I mean, I think we've gotten ourselves into a lot of entangling alliances and we think that we need to be the world police and the enemy of my enemy is, is my friend. That's what we see going on with with Iran and and Israel and and Saudi Arabia. But more so than that, I I think that we don't have politicians who have the stones to do the courageous thing.
It's we we have this problem where we want to export democracy and we want to sort of rule different parts of the world with brute force. And you make a lot more friends. You know, it's it's very like, it's like how to win friends and influence people, right? One of the reasons I think that Donald Trump did a good job with his negotiations with North Korea is that he was willing to actually treat those people with
a little bit of respect. And I don't like what's happened to the people in North Korea. I I think that's atrocious. I don't want anybody living under tyrannical, you know, poverty conditions, but we want to influence people with, you know, a positive message and being their friend and try to win them over. We don't want to threaten to nuke them off the planet. I just that's just not the way
to to spread influence. That's so important because my general anti war position is the costs are extraordinarily high, usually in civilian death, civilian trauma, civilians getting their limbs blown off, soldiers dying. And two, the consequences are so unforeseen that Barack Obama wrote a book allegedly titled A Promised Land.
And he talks about how, you know, we had this great idea about going into Libya and removing Colonel Gaddafi in 2011. It cost us a fraction of what we were spending in Afghanistan and Iraq in like a single day in those places we spent on this entire operation, and we removed the dictator. And then on the like 10 pages later, he goes on to say. Unfortunately, due to a lack of a historical president with regard to democratic institutions, the results were less desirable than we had.
Planned less desirable. LIFG Al Qaeda in Libya ended up taking over that. They filled the vacuum, the very power vacuum that they say, you know, us libertarians are going to create the status actually create. It's nuts. They talk about regime change and like mass murder and death, like how I might say like, oh man, I tried a new recipe and it didn't work out. Like, it's not like meatloaf. It's, you know, thousands, sometimes millions of people's lives.
It's not like, oh, I guess we'll get take out to today. It's really, I don't, I don't really understand fully that level of hubris. Like, I've never felt that disconnected from the rest of humanity and that above them all to just kind of thumb my nose and be like, sorry we murdered you, you know, it just didn't work out. We'll we'll try the same thing in some other country and maybe
it'll work out for those people. Well, they always come to their senses when we're talking about a domestic conflict. They'll say, you know, oh, you cannot use violence, which, which I agree with, you know, so you can't just go storming into the Capitol and demanding change and all this stuff, 'cause that's just, that's barbaric. By the way, if we don't like what another regime is doing, we'll have, you know, dozens of bombing campaigns for maybe a decade, kill tons of civilians.
Well, one second ago it was really bad to use violence with regard to achieving our ends. But now it's oh, we can never appease anyone. And if any regime does anything we don't like, well, civilians aren't really a matter of course. It it's just so sad. OK, so all this we can pin on things like the media and the schooling system when it comes to what the LP is doing to combat the narratives that the media pushes forward, along with state education. What are some good alternatives?
Oh man. Well, you know, we're we're pushing right now this thing called Operation Warhawk removal where we have candidates who are running at the federal level who are running principled anti war messaging campaigns and are going to be attacking really hard their competition during their competition's primary season.
You know, the idea is we want to not just attack you, you know, at the polls in the general election, we want to hit you where it hurts with your with your fellow party members, with the people who are supposed to be on your side. So that's something that we're doing right now to try to to get the word out right. It's not just attacking other candidates, but it's also going to be an aggressive information campaign, radio ads on conservative talk radio and so
on and so forth. Okay. And when it comes to reaching the younger generation, I love books like have you read the Tuttle Twin series or anything that people like Connor Boy I have done. I absolutely love those. And it's great because it's not a it's not too direct where you see what's going on.
You can really give someone the book for their kids and they enjoy the vast majority of it. And then it's really at the end where the lesson is extracted when it comes to making sure that the state doesn't have a monopoly on the minds of the young. What are some areas you like to focus on there? I I think, you know, peaceful parenting is something that's really important.
I have AI have a toddler. We have, we have Tuttle toddlers books, which are pretty cool, the little hard cardboard books. One of the things that I think the Republicans just consistently lose on is youth outreach. And so we have had a concerted effort to do some more college outreach and high school outreach from the LP, trying to get people to go into schools and talk with, you know, political classes, economics classes, history classes.
You'll find that a lot of people have never heard of things like the whole little more they don't know about the crimes of Joseph Stalin. You know, we're just trying to engage young people. I would, I would also encourage and love to see a lot of young people attend our rally.
One of the things that the Libertarian Party has been trying to do in the last couple of years as we go through a lot of changes and reform, is to make the party more family friendly and not let the libertarianism be something that's like siloed off and reserved just for adults. I think there's a whole like wealth of knowledge that you can share with your children at a pace that you feel comfortable
with. You know, like you don't have to necessarily talk about mass murder and things like that. You can talk about self ownership and personal responsibility and non violence. I think that's a great place to start. You can just tell the kids, hey, you know what the teacher told you about Don't hit, don't steal. Yeah, OK Don't have any double standards for that principle. Don't have this major gaping exception for a group of people called government.
If I may do a shameless plug for my new book, Domestic Imperialism 9 Reasons I Left Progressivism, there are two main things that got me to leave progressivism and become a libertarian. The first thing was thinking that Progressivism had something to do with being really compassionate. Once you really see what the progressive is doing, what they're actually engaged in is putting massive obligations on strangers through the state in
order to achieve their end. Which, whether or not, you know, the War on Poverty solves poverty or not, it's not like we get any apologies or any refunds or any retractions. And then the second thing was I thought that the way to empower people was to give them one vote every four years between 2 politicians. Turns out the way to actually empower people is to give them economic freedom.
When As far as things you've learned as chair of the Libertarian Party, what are some great ways to communicate to progressives? And then we'll get into conservatives. But let's just start with the progressive mindset. What have you learned as far as
effective communication tactics? I work with a lot of people on the left, you know, like this rally is a left right coalition and I've worked with with people on the left through Food Not Bombs and and other interesting little like left wing anarchist movements and I think voluntarism and just showing how private organizations, sometimes people get a little bit triggered if you say private charity, but voluntary actions,
right. Individuals can come together and and work together and and make like real positive change. I really do think that it just starts with like the human connection to, you know, sometimes yelling at people on the Internet is not the way to to win friends and and influence people showing them, you know, proof of concept working together. That's genuinely how you can
change minds. There was an interesting part in your discussion with Caleb Maupin where you had said something to the extent of how people should be able to achieve their ends in life and this would also extend to something medically related. So you shouldn't necessarily need a license in order for two consenting adults to engage in, you know, anything medically related. You can go based off certifications and voluntary
reputation organizations. And Moppin seemed very surprised about this, to which you had mentioned that you actually stitched, you know, someone in your house. And. Turns out you don't need decades of licensing, and it's schooling for for things like that. Does this really get to the heart of it? That there's some people who say I get to take the risk I own myself, and there's others who say you have to delegate to the
authorities. I feel like there's a big lesson there we can extract as far as where our different starting points are on approaching these issues. I think so. And sometimes it's sort of a complicated, burdensome conversation. But talking about regulatory frameworks and barriers to entry into, you know, licensed professions is is a huge like problem from the American Medical healthcare. You know, like for example, if you go to Thailand, you can pay
out of pocket. This is Thailand, It's not the United States. Pay out of pocket a couple $1000 and you have a really nice hospital stay for a few days and you get treated for a moderate to serious medical condition. You can't have that in the United States. It'll cost you 36,050 thousand, maybe more.
And it's because they don't have the same regulatory and and capture and and licensure and all of those problems you you get treated nicely, you know that cause generally when we go and we seek help for a serious problem, we're fairly discerning 'cause we're like, oh, my life is at risk and you don't just pick up some, you know, random hobo on the street, you're like, OK, what's can I see your resume?
Who else did you treat? You know, we do referrals and when we talk about making things affordable, you know, all of a sudden the conversation with the left becomes a lot less hostile. You know, it's like, I want you to have a better quality of life. I want you to have healthcare and I want you to thrive. And then we, we should always be having conversations from these kind of like worldview levels, not necessarily policy levels. Like, always start there.
And like, what do we agree on? We agree on human flourishing and like prosperity, and then get a little bit more granular as the conversation progresses. It is amazing because the status wedge that is continually getting in between people, it's like, all right, I want to have this conversation on healthcare about how I want it to to to be more affordable, more accessible. But two minutes ago you were telling me that I should lose my job if I don't get the shot.
And you were telling me my house should be confiscated from me if I don't chip in through property taxes.
Maybe I'd like you to have healthcare, but I'm certainly not going to fight for it. It seems like at every stage, the more statism we have, the more divided the population is than the otherwise would be. It's like we see so many examples of churches and communities bringing people together, but everything with the state almost necessarily involves an enemy, necessarily involves dividing people of
goodwill. What is the libertarian unifying message that's going to unite Americans as opposed to the Democrats and Republicans who are constantly using arbitrary divides? You know, that's a really good question, something I need to work on and really refine for 2024. But essentially, you know, we want, we want people to prosper in 2024 in the future, and we want you to do that with as little pain as possible.
We want you to earn what you keep and we believe in the American dream and we just want it to be accessible. I think that's where we're really at right now. Oh yes, excellent. Here is an article from the Hill Five things the Libertarian Party Stands for. Tell me if this is accurate. Inaccurate. A little misleading. What's going on here?
So moving to the right side of the aisle, they say economic conservatives, libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that there's little the government can do to pressure business or individuals that would be better than the power of the invisible hand. Anything wrong with this paragraph? I mean, I think that that's pretty good for the Hill considering that they, you know, they write some pretty nasty articles about us sometimes.
I mean, faith is probably not quite the way that I would put it. Of course you got to have faith in something, all right? Is it the voluntary sector or the political sector? Yeah, it's not easy to have faith in your average human beings. People can let you down, but they act like there's two there's two things you can have. You can either have faith or certainty. What kind of certainty do these
politicians give us? Besides, we know that they'll lie, and we know that they'll start wars based on lies. Faith stood out to me as totally misleading, OK? So a little condescending is is how I would say that it's a little condescending. Next paragraph. This means unrestricted competition among financial institutions, as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes. Anything wrong with this? Well, I mean unrestricted is
kind of a scare word, right. Unrestricted competition, I mean competition is extremely restricted right now, but I mean it's disproportionate because it's we don't get to compete with the government in a lot of ways. You know, unrestricted is not a is not a bad thing. I mean, what about market free market constraints? You know, the market constraints itself in a lot of ways, yeah.
I never saw the free market, as you know, totally unrestricted, that there's a huge restriction, which is I can't get a second of your time or a penny out of your pocket unless I create some value that you choose to engage with consensually. So it's creating these constant hurdles of I need to keep pleasing the customers or they'll go elsewhere. I need to keep pleasing the employees or they'll go elsewhere. The idea that it's unrestricted and really they're the ones who are.
Look at how competitive democracy is, seeing Chris Christie and Nikki Haley and Ramaswamy go at each other. Is that not competitive? Is, you know, taking a candidate off the ballot in Colorado? Is that not, you know, being ultra competitive? Yeah, it's that's pretty nuts. I mean the, yeah, government has a monopoly I suppose. Could you imagine though if socks were like, if the sock industry was run like the government, we're going to regulate socks like like the DMV.
You get small, medium and large, light brown and dark brown. You can, you want any other color you got to get a permit. Like it would be out of control. It's like free market scare tactics. Next paragraph.
The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate, replacing the need for government run social safety net or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by those market forces. And in the free market, companies live and die without the help of government. So no bailouts? Anything wrong or misleading in
these two? OK. Well, I like that they mentioned no bailouts, but I mean private charity. Well, sure, but what about the family structure? What about things like, you know, free market insurance and insurance costing a lot less and groups that pull together. What is it? You know, I can't think of the term all of a sudden. They're illegal now. Immigrant groups used to have
them, yeah. All of those things existed independent of aggressive taxation and, you know, prior to it and and heavy regulation, a lot more people used to also have their own workers comp insurance in case workers. Yeah, in case you were injured on the job, you would pay 7 or $8 a month and you had your own, your own policy. It's just such, a, well, you know, it is the Hill. It's it's not super flattering. Final thing on economic conservatism or advocating for free market policies.
Here is a chart by the American Enterprise Institute titled by Mark Perry, Chart of the Day or Century and it measures price changes from January of 2000 to December of 2020. Now walk us through what we find on this graph and some lessons
we can extract. OK, hospital services, college tuition, Medicare services, those are all very heavily regulated, and government money is pumped into every single one of them, whether it was COVID treatments, federal grants, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare. Food and Drug Administration. The industry, it just goes on and on and on. Average hourly wage housing, food and beverages. So those are the Reds.
The all the things we see the state regulating and subsidizing are getting are drastically increasing in price. As far as do you have a general theory as to why some things decrease in price? Because it seems like the progressives who who would say, well, TV's are privatized, so you know, the private companies are just going to charge, they should just, yeah, it should be $3,000,000 of TV. The latest TV should be $11 billion and the price should
just keep going up, right. The way that it works, right is that you're, you decide, I'm going to, you know, charge $10.00 for my widget and the government comes along and they says, well, there's good news, we have $9 worth of widget subsidies were passing out and I say I think I'm going to charge $19.00 for my widgets because I knew that people could afford 10 on their own and now they've got an extra 9. And so I'm just going to absorb that.
That's that's how that works. That is literally how that works. When it comes to things we can learn from the success of Javier Malay, recently elected president of Argentina, his messaging seemed very Rothbardian. As far as going populist, being very pro liberty, being very unapologetic, what are some things that come to mind as far as what we can learn in America from his example in Argentina? He told the truth. He did not pull any punches. He told the truth.
He did not care about decorum. He was coarse. He was crass. He was blunt and to the point. He also wrapped libertarianism in a populist wave. Because you need to appeal to people, and if you get up there and just literally quote Man, Economy and State 1100 pages of technical libertarian jargon, they're not going to get it. But what they do understand is that government ruined my life. Everything costs more. I can't afford anything. Everything sucks. Whose fault is it?
It's government's fault. Why AB and C? Inflation. Who did it? The government. Get rid of these agencies. Keep your own money. This is really simple, very direct, aggressive message. And it's fascinating to watch this work because there's such such a debate in the United States and the Libertarian Party especially, and somewhat in the broader movement about what sort of messaging really turns people on and what will win an election.
And there you go, that one. You know, seeing the footage of the cops basically killing Eric Garner on camera, I I don't know all the details, but I remember that was just so inexcusable and so traumatizing for some reason. That pisses me off a heck of a lot more than all the mass murder campaigns that they've gone on since. I don't know, the US Philippine
War, the US Civil War, whatever. There is something about storytelling and focusing on the suffering of one individual, seeing it in person, actually seeing him crying out, you know, of all this stuff. So when it comes to actual stories, we can tell to really invoke and, you know, arouse the emotions of the masses, What are some things that come to mind as far as stories or so? Not narratives, but individual. Stories. We can tell stories, yeah.
Oh man, I don't want to get dark, but you know, the one that really, like, tore me up most recently was Justin Amash talking about his little, his seeing his little cousin, Baby George, pulled out of the rubble in Palestine. It's, I mean, like now that I have a baby I my threshold, my, my ability to tolerate seeing that sort of carnage is is greatly diminished. I had to, like, I had to like, shamefully admit, like I couldn't look at it very long,
had to scroll away. But I mean, that's what American foreign policy does like. It kills young Orthodox Christian babies in churches overseas. People have to dig through the rubble and pull up. And he just was like a little sleeping Angel covered in grey ash, you know? But his little spirit had left his body. Like, that's what our foreign policy does. And if you're not excited about changing it, you know that's what your tax dollars do. And I know that we don't support it, right?
Like, no one says I wake up in the morning and I want children and babies to die. But we should get fired up over wanting, wanting to make a change and and one of the simplest changes we can do is to stop voting for people who say yes, I want to commit murder overseas. And the incredible revelations by Scott Horton and Connor Freeman at the Libertarian Institute, where this had been well known before, but they really put it front and center.
Dave Smith brought it up on. The Joe Rogan experience is that even if you say, well, actually none of this is America or Israel's fault, it's all the fault of Hamas. It turns out, according to places like the Times of Israel, there was an explicit plan for the Likud Party to promote Hamas by allowing money to come in from Qatar. So they could say, look, this radical organization runs Gaza,
we can't make peace with them. So you can't expect us to, you know, justify something like a Palestinian state, 'cause they're basically competing against the Palestinian Liberation Organization or Fatah. So it turns out, even in this example, that Hamas is almost not necessarily a creation of Likud or the IDF, but certainly got tons of money and tons of power as a causal result of the Israeli regime. On steroids, our tax dollars go to enable the Israeli army to do this sort of thing.
It would be unheard of if we waged this kind of warfare on Mexican civilians in response to something cartels did in the United States. It would be insane and it's just an insane thing for us to give someone else money to go and do that. And they're not killing evil, scary, machine gun toting infidels. They're killing people who are hiding in terror in a church
with their young children. Even Charlie Kirk spoke out against it like and that encourages me, you know, and and I love that about social media is that people here in the United States can see what's going on and they can question it and they can say too far, too far Israeli government. Yes, and credit to Candace Owens as well, who had Norman Finkelstein on her show and let him give like a 60 minute
monologue. It is great to see these people coming around, not throwing out everything they already believe in, but embracing the pro-life message of all messages and saying, you know, we could also take this it's wrong to murder people and extend it to an area called the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. So yes, I actually didn't know that about Charlie Kirk, but I want to see exactly what he said. Yeah, look it up on Twitter. You can see his exchange with the Israeli government.
It's so wild, the times that we live in. Well, hey, thank you Elon Musk, for taking Twitter. Maybe it would have happened with Adam. But either way, I've always said there are sort of two ways to look at the world. There's bin Ladenism and then there's libertarianism. If you look at bin Laden
writings when he's asked about. So this is in a book titled Jihad Declarations, Interviews and Speeches by Osama bin Laden, edited by Brad K Brenner. And in it he's, you know, talking about people ask us about, you know, the civilians we're killing, whether it's Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or Al Qaeda operating in Manhattan. And he goes, you are, you know, the Democrats of the world.
You guys have democracy. Your leaders are self are not self appointed, but they're elected by the people. So the people are in charge. So us responding to the politicians is no different than responding to the civilians. So the bin Laden worldview holds everyone in a collectivist way responsible for the crimes of the politicians, whereas the libertarians say not only do they not represent us, the politicians are the parasites within society.
What do you think about this as a genuine divide that we could get behind? You're either a libertarian who advocates peace and non aggression towards non aggressors or you're a bin Laden I who holds people responsible for the actions of their politicians. I think it's a really great point to make. And you know, a lot of Bin Ladens initial points that he made in his, you know, letter declaring jihad on on the United States were also some of them were printed in the beginning of
Scott Horton's book. Enough already. I highly recommend people go read them. He's going to do several things for you. You're going to be like, wow, this man was really direct and clear about why he was pissed off. He really talked about what we were doing over there in the in the Middle East and the United States government. Uh huh. Uh huh. I agree. I agree. And then you're gonna get to a point.
You're gonna be like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don't think that you should murder everybody over here because you're mad with what my military did. It's a really eye opening thing. And that, you know, like I hope that it would make people become very critical of their own foreign policy because you don't wanna, you don't want people
doing that to you. And you know, I don't want people doing that to me. I I don't want to be blown up because bin Laden or someone else is mad because of blood sucking Dick Cheney. You know and and his stuff that I don't agree with. Oh, and none of these Republicans want to be held accountable for what Joe Biden democratically elected Joe Biden does.
No Democrats like, well, if Trump did it, you know, I basically signed off by being a member of this, you know, political entity called America. No one actually thinks this. It's just nonsense that they have repeated. I want to talk about three more people who I consider cultural leaders. We talked about Javier Malay. What is something you learned from Jimmy Dore as to you know why he is so likeable? Was with The Young Turks now on
his own and I thought he did. He gives excellent speeches and he's he's not just a little anti war. He's so passionately on our side hates this mass murder regime. What is a lesson we can learn from Jimmy Dore as far as, you know, educating and riling up people to really understand the importance of this message? Comedy. There's something that that Jimmy Dore and Dave Smith have
that is, I think very special. And they're very skilled communicators and they're used to communicating with audiences and they're used to making people laugh. And they tried over and over and over again, which means that they also had to bomb early on, over and over and over again.
And so, you know, what I extrapolate from all of that is determination, trying commitment, doing it over and over and over again, becoming good at communicating with human beings in a different way, in a different format, relating to them. And then taking all of that energy and everything you've learned and putting it into foreign policy so that you can really communicate with people.
You know, how to tug on their heartstrings, you know, how to make them laugh and you know how to do call back humor. Right. Oh, well, I'm telling you a bunch of facts. And then, you know, the story kind of goes on and then you jump right back to, oh, this poignant part right here. You know what? What bin Laden said, what you saw here, what XY and Z. You know, This is why it's all happening. I I I love that about them. Sure.
And a final person know we can hopefully try to emulate and extract lessons from Ron Paul. What comes to mind as far as lessons we could learn from who did someone to this day, who, even though he was a Republican of course, was on our side on almost every issue. Lessons from Ron Paul we can extract and implement today to spread the message of freedom. You know, Ron Paul was polite, but he was courageous and he always told the truth. He told the truth and he didn't
pull his punches. He didn't have to get worked up. He didn't have to be angry, he didn't have to swear at everybody, but he never sugar coated it. You know, Ron Paul's Giuliani moment was is just like a really, I think it was really life changing moment for me. And I think it was a life changing moment for for thousands of other libertarians. And I hope that if I'm ever in a situation like that, you know that I can rise to the occasion and do that good of a job. Remind us of the details.
What is the date of this event and where's the website that people can check out? Defeatthedeepstate.org We are holding another Rage Against the War Machine rally. Rage Against the War Machine 2. Defeat the Deep State. Let's talk about the relationship between war and the military industrial complex. It's on February 17th. We need to fundraise to get all of our speakers there, to pay for our infrastructure, to our stage, our sound system, all of
that really important stuff. So please donate, especially if you attended last year. We would love to see a matching gift to put on the same rally in the same way this year, February 17th, it's a Saturday afternoon. Be there, it's gonna be awesome. Keith is speaking. Scott Horton is speaking. We've got Garland Nixon from the left, Craig Pastajard, Doula, Patrick Henningson just signed on, and a ton more awesome speakers. I'm so excited about it.
Thanks to everyone for watching Keith and I don't tread on anyone in the Libertarian Institute. Angela McArdle, thank you for your time.