Judging Freedom - Prof Michael Rectenwald: Libertarians and the Presidency

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

Prof Michael Rectenwald: Libertarians and the PresidencySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, May 23rd, 2024. Professor Michael Rechtenwald joins us now. He is, of course, the leading candidate for the Libertarian nomination for president. He comes to us from the floor of the Libertarian National Nominating Convention, which I gather will convene sometime this weekend and choose presidential and vice presidential candidates. Mike, Professor Rechtenwald,

welcome back to the show. Great to be here. So where are you and who else is there and what's going to happen? Paint the picture for us, for us please yes we're in Washington DC at the Washington Hilton Hotel and the Convention Center and this is going to be a wild weekend we have the presidential nomination the vice presidential nomination but we also have some outside speakers coming in. You may have heard that Donald Trump will be speaking to our convention. Also, RFK Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy will also speak and debate our vice presidential candidate. And then there's also Thomas Massey. And finally, Ron Paul will close out the convention on Sunday. Oh, that's terrific.

I've only heard the names of two people who should be speaking at a libertarian convention. Why would they invite Trump and RFK and Ramaswamy? These guys are authoritarians, not libertarians. Yes, they are. Well, I think the strategy was, listen, the Libertarian Party has been trying to get on a debate stage with these major parties for over 50 years to no avail. with the opposing party. So we invited the national chair, invited Biden as well. Of course, he did not respond, but the others answered in the affirmative. So we're going to get a chance to actually contrast our views, libertarianism versus the authoritarian status that these people are. And so that's really, I think, what the objective was. It's a long bomb pass, frankly.

It's risky. Things could go out of control. That's possible. It's very possible that the convention gets overshadowed by these shadowy figures. But we're going to do our best to get the message across. And I hope to be confronting Trump directly as the nominee for the party. Well, that'll be extraordinary. I know at one point the party was toying with nominating Bobby.

Full disclosure, Bobby's a friend of mine. We don't agree on many things, but we have been friends for a long time. We certainly agree on many things but we have been friends for a long time uh we certainly agree on civil liberties on assange and snowden on vaccine mandates uh on lockdowns and on ukraine but we clearly don't agree on reparations we clearly agree on uh on israel right I would think that if Donald Trump is elected president, the federal government, the U.S. government's policy on Israel will be even more destructive than it is now. He'll just give Prime Minister Netanyahu, if he's still the prime minister, everything he wants with utter

abandon for how he uses them. And his son-in-law has boasted he wants to sell beachfront property on, this is reprehensible, but he said it, wants to sell beachfront property on the Mediterranean, which is now the Gaza Strip, theoretically a separate country from Israel. Disgusting. And yeah, Trump has said basically the reason that Israel should hurry and get this campaign over with is bad PR. Not that it's killing 45,000 plus people, 70,000 plus seriously injured, the entire population utterly displaced, people starving to death, and aid trucks being

bombed when they try to deliver aid. Aid cut off to UNRWA, thanks to 17 nations agreeing at Israel's behest to cut off aid to UNRWA, which is, of course, the UN's main aid agency that has been delivering aid to the Gaza Strip for decades. So this is just, yeah, it's unbelievable. They have the same policy, I think, that Trump would even be worse with reference to Israel. He was very instrumental in getting that $100 billion package passed that will give Israel a great percentage of it and does. Yeah, these are terrible candidates. They represent complete robbery, robbery of the American public to pay for murder. What are the issues in the battle that you're undergoing this weekend for the Libertarian nomination?

Is it just personality and support, or are there issue issues? Are there ideological issues? Are your opponents not true messengers of small government, maximum individual liberty and peace? There's some variation there. of small government, maximum individual liberty and peace? There's some variation there. Some of the candidates are actually quite statist when it comes down to it because they want special protections for their individual, particular beleaguered population, so-called,

and therefore things like transing children and things like that are just completely beyond the pale violation of the non-aggression principle, because a child cannot consent to something like a transgender reassignment surgery or hormone treatments and puberty blockers. So those are some of the primary issues. Then some of the candidates have not been very principled in terms of where they stand with reference to the state. I've made it very clear that, listen, I am an abolitionist completely, and our goal should be the abolition of this federal government, which is a hegemon that's crushing the American people. This has got to go. I am the only candidate running with a strategy, which is decentralization and nullification, decentralizing power, getting power in the hands of people at the local level, nullifying unconstitutional federal and even state laws, and having people take

control of their lives. Basically, the ultimate goal being self-governance. We don't need overlords to tell us what to do. When the Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Act, which, among other things, made it a crime to criticize the president and the foreign policy of the president. It was John Adams. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly authored the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which were enacted by the legislatures of those states and which purported to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in those states and basically said to state officials, and even the federal officials in the state, don't even think about enforcing this awful legislation. How would your nullification work? Would it be the highest court of a state or would

it be the legislature of a state that would basically say, for example, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. We're not going to enforce it in fill in the blank, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, whatever state it may be. It would be the legislative bodies and the executive bodies that would would decide not to enforce federal laws that are unconstitutional and anything that's not specifically cited in the constitution as you very well know does not have to be abided by by the states or the local localities so yeah this effective dissent and this resistance to federal mandates and laws. What would you do about a federal judge sitting in Montgomery, Alabama, that found the legislative act of nullification unconstitutional and

enjoined its enforcement. How would you address that? The appeal of the federal judge is up through the federal judiciary. Right. It's never going to recognize a loss or a diminution of federal power. That's a very good point. And it's a real conundrum. You know, hopefully it would go to the Supreme Court, but as you said,

the Supreme Court has an interest in representing the federal government, and it just happens to be a party in all cases in which it's also the judge in the case. So that represents a real problem. In other words, the Supreme Court has an interest in exercising federal centralized government. And so this would have to come down to force in some cases. They would have to force these localities to abide by federal laws and mandates. And then the resistance has to happen at the local level. And I don't think if you have enough localities doing this, they can't possibly execute this kind of force necessary. What would a libertarian president do about the

federal income tax? Abolish it. Absolutely. Along with the IRS itself. Now, there are some candidates here that actually want to replace the income tax with a so-called fair tax, a real misnomer. If I ever heard one, there's no such thing as a fair tax. They would like to replace it with a consumption tax, 20% on all consumption, and then would give exemptions to somebody or people making $40,000 or less. But my counter to that is, how do you determine who's making $40,000 or less except through an income tax return? So it just adds another layer of bureaucracy. The only answer is to cut it entirely. Okay. We're going to take a break for a commercial announcement when we come back. So it just adds another layer of bureaucracy. The only answer is to cut it entirely.

Okay. We're going to take a break for a commercial announcement. When we come back with Professor Recktenwald, we'll talk about foreign policy, the foreign policy of the Republican Party, of the Democratic Party, which is the same thing, and of the Libertarian Party. But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold, and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. You have $100 in the bank. It still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less.

Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power, and mine, by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold.

Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. We're speaking with Professor Michael Rechtenwald, who's the leading candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination who comes to us from the floor of the convention. I'm going to play two clips for you, Professor Rechtenwald, from Victoria Nuland. She, the orchestrator of the first coup in Ukraine in 2004, the second coup in Ukraine in 2014, and of the war in Ukraine. She, who, without using these words, indicated the

United States and the West should use Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive President Putin from office. She was eventually fired even by the Biden administration, though it generally agrees with her ideology, and she's been teaching at Columbia University, but she resurfaced last weekend. These are incendiary clips. They're not very long, but I'd like to run them and ask you to tell us what you think of them. Chris, number five and number six, consecutively, please.

They need to be able to stop these Russian attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia. So I think there's also a question of whether we, the United States and our allies, ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases, which heretofore we've not been willing to do. I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are, where troops are being supplied from. I think it's time for that because Russia has obviously escalated this war, including, as you said at the beginning, attacking Russia's second city, Kharkiv, which is

not on the front lines and trying to decimate it without ever having to put a boot on the ground. So I think it is time to give the Ukrainians more help hitting these bases inside Russia. Those clips courtesy of ABC News from an interview she gave last Sunday. What should we do with Ukraine? How do we end this war? How do we stop the slaughter after the United States has spent over $125 billion, with a B, funding it? military aid entirely. This is not our conflict. And Nuland, you know, she's either a sadist or insane or both. She wants to do something that would inaugurate World War III. We start striking, or should I say Ukraine, with the help of U.S. military aid and arms striking Russia directly at its bases. Now you're talking about a full engagement of the United States, really, in the conflict, which would trigger, of course, all the NATO partners to enter into a battle, into a war with Russia.

And that would be outright suicidal. Well, that would make her and Lindsey Graham and the folks who embrace that ideology very happy. They have longed for this. They mistakenly believe that NATO can defeat Russia, even though Russia is within days, weeks, at the most months of its triumph over NATO in Ukraine. I think these people are just blinded by ideology. I don't think they're realists at all, Mike. What do you think? Right. Yeah, they're totally indoctrinated into a particular ideology that thinks that the United States is not only the world's watchdog, but also a police officer.

And they think that Putin represents an existential threat to the West, which I don't see it. I don't see this existential threat at all. As you know very well, the NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War, even after the Soviet Union was disbanded, it kept expanding eastward against the promises of the U.S. administration, Bush and so forth. So we're looking at the most ridiculous conflict in terms of expanding further and exacerbating this already terrible conflict in which Ukrainians are being sacrificed to the mob death for nothing. There's not going to be anything gained from this. And I wouldn't be surprised if they start to try to get mercenaries to go over there. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happening. Is there also a split on Ukraine

amongst the people seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination? Or are all of you on the same page on this? Well, within the presidential nomination, there are slight splits. Some of the candidates vilify Putin. They go along with the regime narrative that Putin is this tyrant that wants to conquer all of Eastern Europe and so forth. But, you know, that's as far as they go. But there are caucuses within the rank and file of the Libertarian Party. Let's switch over to Israel. If you became president, what would you do? Immediately cut all arming and funding of Israel. That includes the $3.4 billion cent every year. That includes the special aid package. That includes these endless shipments of arms. This is just outrageous what's happening right now. The United States is being, the United States taxpayer is being

surreptitiously drawn into a complicity with the genocidal campaign. So as far as libertarianism goes, that's a double violation of the NAP, the non-aggression principle, being robbed, first of all, to pay for this, and then the money is being used to kill people. Should Benjamin Netanyahu be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for genocide? Yes. Should Joe Biden be prosecuted for funding genocide? Yes, absolutely. Interesting. Here's David Cameron, a person for whom we all have very little respect, but he is the British foreign minister condemning the ICC. Well, they haven't indicted Netanyahu yet, nor have they issued the arrest warrant, but the prosecutors made the application for it. Here's cut number seven.

I don't believe for one moment that seeking these warrants is going to help get the hostages out. It's not going to help get aid in and it's not going to help deliver a sustainable ceasefire. And as we've said from the outset, because Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, and because Palestine is not yet recognised as a state, we don't think that the court has jurisdiction in this area. But I would go beyond that and say, frankly, I think this is mistaken in terms of position, in terms of timing, in terms of effect. To draw moral equivalence between the Hamas leadership and the democratically elected leader of Israel, I think is just plain wrong. He's speaking there in the House of Lords, of which he is a member, not in the House

of Commons. That's why you saw the red leather chairs instead of the green ones for the commons. I thought that the prosecutor had added the Hamas leaders in order to show some equipoise. And here you have David Cameron saying it's reprehensible that the Hamas leaders are on the same level as Netanyahu. And he referred to Israel as a democracy, which of course we know it's not. You know that the support for Israel is overwhelming in the American government, the state, the administrative state, and the Congress. And if you vetoed any of this, your veto would probably be overridden. Would you still refuse to send military aid

to Israel or Ukraine, even if you had vetoed it and your veto was overridden by both houses of the Congress? Yes. I think I would exercise executive privilege and issue executive orders to overturn this aid and these arms. It's just beyond the pale. This is just unbelievable what's happening. Then you can't even criticize Israel. If you do, you're called an anti-Semite. If, in fact, you criticize Zionism, you're called an anti-Semite.

And it's getting to the point where they're going to try to pass hate law speech such that you can't criticize Israel at all. And this is already being passed off into the colleges, as we saw with the protests. They're making it effectively illegal now to protest this campaign and to protest Israel's actions. This is just some sort of strange strange special carve out for Israel, who if it was another nation state, I think the cards would fall a completely different way. So we have people condemning Johnson and others condemning the ICC for these indictments, when actually if this were any other country, they'd be praising these indictments, when actually, if this were any other country, they'd be praising these indictments, as they did in the case of Vladimir Putin. Right, right. Before we go,

Professor Rechtenwald, give us the one or two minute version of your stump speech, why you're running for the libertarian nomination for president and why you'd be better for freedom and prosperity and peace than Trump, Biden or Kennedy? Yes, I'm running to restore the Libertarian Party to the radical vision of its founder, David Nolan, and its co-founder, Murray Rothbard. And I do not aim to simply reform the state. I am here to lead a movement, to dismantle it. That's what's necessary. We're under this behemoth of a state. It has to be diminished.

It has to be diminished or it'll crush us. It's sucking the lifeblood out of this country. And this is the only candidacy that's coming up this way, that's putting the cards on the table. And I believe I will be nominated, and I will be running against two statists and warmongers and authoritarians of different stripes. But they're the same at the core. They have the same foreign policy. Of course, they would do the same things in Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and all over. They're saber-rattling with China. These people are nuts.

I mean, they want to put us at existential risk. I'm trying to save this country from ruin and destruction. So that's why I asked you to join me to wreck the regime. That's what it takes. We must wreck the regime. We must get rid of this hegemon. We must get out from under its oppressive powers. And we must replace the foreign policy with a foreign policy of peace, freedom, and free trade and cooperation with other nation states. Professor Michael Rechtenwald, best of luck to you. I'll be watching your speech and watching the convention over the weekend, and we'll

see you again soon. All the best, my friend. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much, Judge. Coming up later today at three o'clock, Kyle Anzalone from Antiwar.com at 415. Matt Ho, just back from the Julian Assange appeal in London. And at five o'clock, the inimitable Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm out.