Judging Freedom - The roadmap for the nuclear disarmament

Episode Date: January 11, 2022

Karen Kwiatkowski joins Judge Napolitano to discuss her latest piece 'A Modest Proposal'.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hello there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here on Judging Freedom. Today, a conversation with one of the smartest people I know, Karen Kwiatkowski, is a retired lieutenant colonel from the United States Air Force. She's also a graduate of Harvard University and holds a Ph.D. in world politics from the Catholic University of America, a school that I'm

close to and very fond of, not ideologically, but religiously. Karen, welcome to Judging Freedom. It's always a pleasure to have you. I think the last time we chatted was back in my Fox days when I had Liberty File on Fox Nation. Yeah, that's right. No, it's great to be here. I'm glad you've got a podcast. Thank you. Thank you. A lot of our people, a lot of libertarians of various stripes have been very generous in subscribing to this and listening to it faithfully. So you wrote a piece, speaking of libertarian, at the center for libertarian ideological and academic thought, lewrockwell.com. Lew is a longtime friend of mine, and as you may know, I'm on the board of Mises, which he founded and out of which he operates. And your piece is called A Modest Proposal. Now, I read Lou Rockwell all the time, and my columns us now a very provocative statement in here,

and then I'll let you take the ball and run with it, which I know you can. What if world leaders saw the United States as a large, incompetent, nuclear-armed country, unable to pay its bills, suffering domestic unrest, and facing imminent collapse of the social welfare state, upon which 70% of the population depends for survival. Now, I would submit that that is not an opinion, that those are inassailable truths that you have put into the what if. So the answer to the what if has to be yes. Yep, I think so. I think so. You know, I got an email from a person who read that who had been a lifelong Democrat,

but now reads Lou Rockwell every day and has rejected the progressive socialism, I guess. But he took issue with the 70 percent being dependent on the welfare state. And, you know, he doesn't read Lou Rockwell often enough. I guess, you know, he's new to it. But I think... How'd you get 70 percent? Because I think the number might actually be higher if you count employees of the government as well as those who receive what the government takes from the rest of us. This is exactly it. And I did answer the guy and listed a few things that I'm thinking about. And obviously, all of the various Social Security, Medicare programs, the government retirements, the military retirements, the state retirements, the local politicians and firefighter retirements. And then, of course, all of the direct employees and their contractors. And so now you know, it's probably is over 70 percent because the other 30 don't work.

Well, that's not true. They do. No, I understood. Understood. But but look, it is really beyond dispute that the country is large. The government is incompetent. It is nuclear armed. It can't pay its bills. It's suffering from domestic unrest and facing imminent collapse. How imminent? And you talk about this later in the piece, Karen. How imminent is the collapse? It's you know, I've been predicting and I think a lot of us have for a long time of an imminent collapse. But, you know, the loss of our money, we do not have sound money. There's a there's a setup, a Ponzi scheme, whatever you want to call it, that keeps things going.

But that's a big problem. And so something related to the money collapse. But also there's the faith collapse. And this is what we saw very much in the Soviet Union. Many years before the Soviet Union collapsed and came apart, the people as a whole had no faith in their government. If their governments, if the lips were moving in a politician, they understood exactly 100% that they were being lied to. They knew that. And we are very much have, we've been like that for a while. And then if you add in the recent years, the Trump years, the Obama years, the Trump years, and now the Biden year, you see a division in society, which really is not, it's intractable, really. I mean, people have two sets of things that they believe about government. Both of them are unhappy with

government, but we can't even talk to each other. So, you know, you see people moving from state to state. Blue states are losing populations. People are, we've had the largest expatriate movement in years. I mean, every year, more people leave permanently, the United States. So we are a country that if we were looking at us, if the CIA and the State Department and futurists in Washington were looking at our country, we would be concerned. We would be particularly concerned about the fact that we have a centrally controlled nuclear inventory of nuclear weapons. And of course, we have other, we have biological weapons, you know, we have many dangerous things that are all centrally controlled. But the nuclear stuff is something that people think about a lot.

And then, of course, it occurred to me as I was hearing the accolades and the obituaries of people who look at arms, was that South Africa voluntarily disarmed prior to the end of apartheid. And a lot of people, whether it was true or not, said, oh, well, we don't trust a black-dominated South Africa to have nuclear weapons. But it wasn't really all about that, if it was even about that. But de Klerk disarmed. He had seven, six and a half weapons, and they got rid of all of them. And he had some help and some encouragement from other countries. And that's a small example. But that's how we should be operating in general. I mean, these things are dangerous. And look at our country right is it realistic to expect that the united states would unilaterally disarm or would we have to expect our chinese british israeli the israelis don't acknowledge they have it but everybody you're from the intelligence community everybody there knows they do and the russians to disarm as well and maybe even the iranians right no and that's why i titled it a modest proposal which is kind of a little tongue-in-cheek

because, you know, it's actually quite radical proposal. And I don't think it's at all likely that we would unilaterally disarm. But what occurs to me is that if our country fails, that we, in a number of ways, splits apart, becomes ungovernable in any kind of way, that the rest of the world has mechanisms to oversee such a disarmament. It wouldn't be necessarily by our consent, but, you know, and I guess the other thing that caused me to think about this is the craziness about the one-year anniversary of January 6th, regardless of what actually happened, the hysteria one year later exhibited the last week, you know, by the president and others when they talked about it, really indicates a level of fear that I didn't realize existed there. I mean,

it could be fake fear, but I think they're very nervous. And that nervousness means that we have big problems in this country that even people that don't like to talk about them recognize. Was January 6th the beginning of a second civil war? I mean, you say in your column, civil war or civil dissolution here in the U.S. is already happening. Yeah, it is, but not through walkthroughs and protests in the Capitol building. I mean, I think it's happening in much more substantial ways in the sense that people are attempting, both as individuals and families and even as states, to separate themselves from Washington, D.C. in one way or another. I think, you know, already the states and the people resent the tax burden that the federal government puts on them. And that tax

burden can only go up. I mean, imagine if the Fed is really going to raise rates and they raise them and imagine if they raise them to market levels, what would be naturally required? Our federal government would collapse. I mean, they cannot pay the debt. They cannot fund the things that they've been funding without printed money, without electronic money created out of thin air. So if they had to get that money somewhere else, where would they get it? Well, they try to get it from states and individuals and families and businesses. And already, those families and states and individuals do not, they're unhappy with the level of taxes they're already paying. So there's things that could happen. I don't see it happening as a march

through the Capitol building. I'm going to give you some ammo for your argument about the United States dissolving. Prior to the Civil War, there was a concept of nullification, whereby the legislature or the highest court of a state could nullify something the federal government did and say, well, quite simply, it doesn't apply in our state. This goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in which the articles of nullification for Kentucky and Virginia were written by none other than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, who wrote the Constitution. Fast forward to today, I don't know your views on abortion, but Roe versus Wade has been nullified in the state of Texas with the express approval twice of the Supreme Court of the United States. That's right.

Which basically said, even though Roe versus Wade is the law of the land and Texas has defied it, Roe versus Wade, abortions can happen up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Texas, no abortion can be had after the sixth week of pregnancy. We're not going to interfere with it while the case makes its way through the courts, which means for at least another two years. Might that be the legal beginning of the undermining of the federal government. Stated differently, might other states nullify things that the federal government has done for which there is a legitimate argument to be made that the federal thing violates the Constitution? Yes, absolutely. And I think our country is a legalistic country. It's a rule-based country. is this is the real wedge that we have. This is the real power that we have, states and people to to limit federal government, because there's not much other power to limit it. I mean, we are a well-armed country, but that's chaotic and there's no organization.

A lot of people want to say, oh, the military will lead us into freedom. It's like, are you kidding me? That is so insane. But it's not insane at all to have a mass level of nullification. And it could take forms that we as maybe conservatives, libertarians wouldn't like. You know, the blue states will do their share of nullification. Correct, correct. It's a wonderful thing. And I'll tell you, the example I give, it's a little bit old, but I always talk about it when I get a chance. Correct. Correct. utah state of utah got in trouble uh their students weren't progressing according to the federal government and so the federal government said we have to do this and that and the utah secretary of education called dc and said you can keep your five percent we don't really need it

and we're not going to comply with your things well you could say well that's nullification without the court so that's an administrative notification is wonderful well what happened was the department the secretary of education flew immediately to uh i assume salt lake city and um had a conversation and they agreed to basically you will take our money and we won't make you do anything for it i mean this this demonstrates the incredible weakness of the federal government i mean they live to integrate into intensity and, you know, exist within our own local familial state relationships. They without us acknowledging them and recognizing them, they have no power whatsoever. And I think that example with what happened with the No Child Left Behind money really demonstrated it.

You don't have to do bottom line. You don't have to do anything. federal government says, not a thing. And I think many people and states recognize this. So in 1986, when the federal government realized that it did not have the authority to control speed limits, and it did not have the authority to control the minimum blood alcohol content in the car automobile driver's veins before he could be charged with DWI. Senator Frank Lautenberg, late Senator Lautenberg of my home state of New Jersey, came up with the idea, well, let's repave all the federal highways in the country. And in return for repaving it, we give the money to the states. They have to use the money to repave the highways. They have to agree to lower the DWI from 0.10, which is two and a half beers, to 0.08, which is two beers.

And they have to lower their speed limits from whatever they are to 55 miles an hour. 49 states agreed. South Dakota said, we'll take the cash. We're not lowering the speed limits from whatever they are to 55 miles an hour. 49 states agreed. South Dakota said, we'll take the cash. We're not lowering the speed limits. We have roads in South Dakota that have no speed limits. And by the way, they also have no accidents. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, you want the money, you accept the strings. Now, what left-wing, pinko, progressive, creep, big government president signed that into law? Ronald Reagan. So, you know, you and I have a colleague named Philip Hamburger at Columbia University. He's probably not very happy because he's the only libertarian on the law school faculty there. He's just done a massive study of every instance in which the federal government

has exceeded the powers given to it under the constitution by paying or bribing the states so your example of the no child left behind has a happy ending the south dakota versus dole dole was elizabeth dole was the secretary of transportation she had nothing to do with this she was just named as the defendant hasn't has an unhappy uh ending but this might all stop if the feds don't have cash that's right and if the federal reserve can't just keep adding zeros on to chase jp morgan chase's account at the fed saying now distribute this money and there's literally nobody accepts what is uh distributed so your your view to make sure that i'm summarizing this correctly if i don't stop me is that the civil war that is coming is not one of violence it's not the people on on January 6th versus the people who don't like

what happened on January 6th. It's everyone realizing that the federal government is bankrupt, financially bankrupt, intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt, and the Constitution, though it exists formally, functionally doesn't work anymore. Yeah, I couldn't have said it better myself. And that is, I think, a happier way to think about the decentralization of power in this country, because it doesn't have to be a violent one. It doesn't have to be an unhappy one. I mean, like you said with the Constitution, most people who love the Constitution at the same time realize that it is not in effect. So you can still love the Constitution and not want to promote Washington, D.C. in any way, shape or form. Because, in fact, it would be inconsistent to promote Washington and love the Constitution.

So it's just not in play. The president of the Mises Foundation, a friend of yours and mine, Jeff Deist, has been writing and speaking about this very effectively for about a year. And he calls it soft secession. State's just basically saying to the federal government, like in the example of Texas and abortion, forget about it. Forget about it. We're just not going there anymore. And the people going along with it. Maybe if we can get you to Auburn, you and Jeff and I can do a program on where is the country going? How can we accelerate peaceful nullification and soft secession? And then I was critical of Ronald Reagan before. One of the beautiful things he said we can actually do.

You can vote with your feet. If you don't like the taxes in New Jersey or the abortion laws in New Jersey, which, by the way, as of yesterday, permit abortion up to the moment before birth, you can go 10 miles from where I am now to the other side of the Delaware River to Pennsylvania, where you will like the laws, particularly on abortion and guns and taxes. Same thing in Massachusetts. You can drive a half an hour and get to New Hampshire. Yep. No, it's absolutely true. And actually, I think the powers that be realize this. And I think one of the big emphasis, futuristic views, but it's happening now, is they really want to limit the ability of people to vote with their feet. They can control, as we've seen from many, many elections, you know, they can control the outcomes of these elections. But they can't yet stop people from walking across state borders and moving and taking their livelihood.

They're having a tough time with all this working from home stuff. I mean, what a liberating kind of thing that it's been for so many people to be productive, but pay the taxes that they would like to pay because they're working out of the state they'd like to live in. And they're just as productive, if not more. I think there's a lot of freedom that just bursts out around the edges all the time. It's good stuff. Karen, you have so many titles, Colonel, Doctor, Champion of Individual Liberty. What a pleasure. I can't wait. Thank you for coming on Judging Freedom. I can't wait till we can do it again. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Judge. All the best, my friend.