reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @RonPaul
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
They did it again. The Justice Dept. dropped the claim that Venezuela's 'Cartel de los Soles' is an actual group! Just like the false WMD excuse to invade Iraq. https://t.co/zRMY7NvKKv
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Paul and the other speaker discuss a sequence of public claims and shifts regarding Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and the Cartel de los Soles.
They begin by recalling a $50,000,000 bounty on President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, arguing that Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles. They note that Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio stated in November that the State Department intends to designate Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization headed by the illegitimate Nicolas Maduro, asserting that the group has corrupted Venezuela’s institutions and is responsible for terrorist violence conducted with other designated foreign terrorist organizations, as well as for trafficking drugs into the U.S. and Europe.
The speakers claim that for weeks Americans were exposed to a narrative portraying foreign narco-terrorist cartels running the country and that this narrative influenced public opinion, making some believe it might be acceptable to take drastic actions, including attacking boats, on the premise that “they’re all terrorists.”
They then point to a development that “dropped yesterday,” presenting a clip that, once Maduro was “in their grasp,” the Justice Department allegedly dropped the claim that Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles is an actual group. They assert that after months of hype intended to drum up support for invading Venezuela, the claim was retracted, with the implication that the government figures had misrepresented the situation.
The speakers compare this sequence to the Iraq WMD narrative, asserting that officials “swore up and down for years” about WMDs, and when the invasion occurred they were shown joking about the existence of WMDs. They recall President George W. Bush joking about WMDs at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, looking under the couch and the coffee table, asking “Where’s those WMDs?”
They conclude by likening the Cartel de los Soles to the WMDs of their operation, arguing that the construct is already completely falling apart. The overarching claim is that the Cartel de los Soles was used as a justification for aggressive action, and that the narrative surrounding the cartel has been exposed as unreliable or false.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now we remember that there was a $50,000,000 bounty put on president Nicolas Maduro's head, the president of Venezuela. And that $50,000,000 bounty, argued that he was the head he was the head of a narco terrorist drug cartel car called, Cartel del Solas. And you can actually see it. Now secretary Marco Rubio, just in November just in November, he said the state department intends to designate Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization headed by the illegitimate Nicolas Maduro. The group has corrupted the institutions of government in Venezuela and is responsible for terrorist violence conducted by and with other designated foreign terrorist organizations as well as for trafficking drugs into The US and Europe.
They spent weeks and weeks on this narrative, doctor Paul. There are foreign narco terrorist cartels running the country. We've got to do something, and Americans started buying it. They started believing it. Well, maybe there's something to this.
Maybe it's okay to blow up boats. They're all terrorists. Well, this dropped yesterday. Put on this next clip. Now that they have Maduro in their grasp, the justice department, you wouldn't believe it.
The justice department drops the claim that Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles is an actual group. So they're saying after hyping this for months, getting Americans hyped up on invading Venezuela, now they're saying, just kidding, guys. There's no such thing. This reminds me, doctor Paul, of the WMDs for Iraq. They swore up and down for years.
They're working on WMDs. They're working on WMDs. And then when the invasion happened, they got their invasion. Remember president George w Bush, He was joking about it at a White House correspondence dinner. He was looking under the couch and looking under the coffee table laughing.
Where's those WMDs? They just don't care. This is exactly it. The Cartel de los Solos is the WMDs of this operation, and it's already completely falling apart.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
What A Shame For DOGE -- Trump Should've Listened To Elon https://t.co/Z6Gr86QVJg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 recalls the initial excitement and caution around Dogecoin, noting some people were euphoric while others were more cautious about its potential to cut spending. He asks David about the early perception and whether there was fear of losing work or reducing government.
Speaker 1 says it was a funny situation because it happened right before the election. He invited Dr. Paul on his show, A Neighbor's Choice, and describes an idea to challenge the “deep state” on Halloween by asking Dr. Paul to help Elon Musk cut $2,000,000,000,000. He explains he asked Dr. Paul if he’d be willing to help, and Dr. Paul responded politely, not seeking a job but willing to help if asked. This led to Elon Musk expressing interest in bringing Ron Paul on board with Doge, generating a big reaction on Twitter, with memes and images, and people saying they would support changes if Ron Paul helped Doge. After the election, however, there was no follow-up, and Speaker 1 suggests Doge did not become the dog that hunts.
Speaker 0 adds a cautious tone, saying he doesn’t like to be overly optimistic or pessimistic, but felt compelled to be cautious about Doge due to momentum from large spending, special interests, and the sacredness of liberty within democracy. He wished well but urged waiting to see what happens, noting the momentum might not last.
Speaker 2 notes the weekend exclusive that Doge does not exist with eight months left on its charter, highlighting acrimony and negative commentary about Ron Paul’s involvement. He emphasizes that Ron Paul did not intend to join any administration and would help any party that wanted to actually cut government. He suggests it’s easy to become black-pilled about the situation. He contends the president has been captured by DC, describing Gaza, a bloodbath in Gaza, Venezuela, and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war as ongoing issues. He asserts that Doge was massively popular and that Trump rode that wave into the White House with libertarian support, but as Trump veered away from that stance, his numbers dropped despite claims of improvement on Truth Social. He argues Trump’s declining numbers are evident in major polls, and that the deep state influenced the situation, with the deep state running DC.
Overall, the discussion centers on the rise and decline of Doge’s political relevance, Ron Paul’s involvement, Elon Musk’s role, and the broader political environment including Trump’s trajectory, foreign conflicts, and the influence of the “deep state.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, there is something in the news that I think you know a little bit about and paid a little bit of attention to, and you had the right understanding when it was started when a few people got euphoric about it. But there were a few that were a little more cautious about, you know, Doge. You know? Now how what was it gonna do? Was it gonna cut spending?
And it it was something that it was easy to be cynical if you came from a libertarian view. But, David, do you remember that that event when it was started? Tell me, were you super excited? I'm gonna be out of work. There won't be anything to talk about.
Government's gonna be cut way back. What are we gonna do? Well,
Speaker 1: I tell you
Speaker 0: that.
Speaker 1: You know, I tell you what, it was a funny story because it was right before the election, and I asked to have you on, doctor Paul, on my, show, A Neighbor's Choice. And I said, okay. What am I gonna talk about? They and you said you're available for your team said he was that you'd be available for Halloween. And I thought, I I got an idea.
I'll give the deep state a real fright on Halloween. I'll see if I can get doctor Paul to say he'd help Elon. Let me see if I can get a a yes out of you. So I had you on, and I said, hey. Elon wants to cut $2,000,000,000,000.
I think we know the one guy who'd hold him accountable to that. That'd be you, doctor Paul. Would you be willing to help? And, of course, you were very polite and, you know, you said, well, you know, I'm not looking for a job, but I'd be glad to help if he asked. And, all of a sudden, we put that out on Twitter and boom, it's blowing up all over, becomes the number one trending topic.
Your name is going all over Twitter. And Elon finds it and says, I'd love to have Ron Paul join Doge too. And all of you all of a sudden, it's a huge sensation. And he's posting funny memes and images, and people are saying, you know, I wasn't gonna vote for Trump, but if Ron gets to help Doge, then I'll crawl through glass to see that happen. So a lot of people were absolutely thrilled and actually made a big impact.
But, unfortunately, when I saw that they didn't follow-up after the election with you, I said, you know, I think Doge is not gonna be the dog that hunts after all. You know?
Speaker 0: You know, I I never like to be overly optimistic. I I never want to leave everything very down, trodden, and then the world's coming to an end. People should have hope. But in this case, when this came out, I I really, really had to be cautious. I mean, I wished him well, and I'm sure a lot of good libertarians did because there were some good things in there.
But I remember expressing this to many people, may have even on the program, that let's wait and see what happens because there's too much momentum. The momentum is there because the the treatment is so horrendous, and that is when you have all this spending and all these special interests and and this this sacredness sacredness of liberty of democracy. Anybody who can put a majority together can get what they want and the wars that were going on. So I was rather pessimistic, but I kept encouraging it. But it seems like it's not gonna last forever.
It didn't didn't seem to you that it was doing so well at the beginning, then it sort of faded away quick quickly, but they were trying to close the door and not have us notice.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, mean, the reason we're talking about it is it came out over the weekend. Exclusive DOAGE doesn't exist with eight months left on its charter. You know, there's a lot of acrimony and recriminations about it and, people with negative comments and saying, oh, you know, why why did Ron Paul sign on to this? But, you know, what people don't understand, like you like, David said from the beginning, you weren't joining any administration. You would help any any any party that wanted to actually cut government.
And so, Mayne, I think it's easy for us to sit back and be black pilled about the whole thing. Gosh. What could have been? And indeed, the president, unfortunately, has been captured by DC. He's been sucked into the vortex of endless foreign adventures.
He calls them peacemaking, but it's peacemaking with warships. So, you know, we've got Gaza. We've got we've got a bloodbath in Gaza. We've got Venezuela. We've got the ongoing Ukraine Russia war, on and on and on.
And, unfortunately, as both of you gentlemen know, two things. One, Doze was massively popular. And, David, you're right. I mean, he rode that wave. President Trump rode that wave into the White House.
That in libertarian support, rode that into the White House, because it was massively popular. And now that he's veered away from that, look at his numbers. His numbers are in the tank. Despite what he says on Truth Social that his numbers are better than ever, someone underneath that post over the weekend posted the every one of the major polls, and he's down double digits. So it's unpopular to do what he's doing.
He should have listened to Elon. Should He have listened to Ron Paul. He should have gone the Doge route. It's not completely his fault. Congress has a huge role because that's where it hit a brick wall.
But the you know, president Trump does carry a lot of weight, and he could have pushed a lot through if he'd focused on it. But sadly enough, the deep state got him. The d state runs DC.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently heard Senator Ted Cruz say that his main goal in the Senate is to protect Israel, reflecting a belief shared by many US Christians that supporting Israel is essential to avoid divine punishment. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, a former Christian Zionist, offers a counter-argument in today's Liberty Report.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Not long ago US Sen. Ted Cruz told Tucker Carlson that his main purpose in getting into the US Senate was to "protect Israel." Like many US Christians, he expressed the view that one must "bless" the modern state of Israel or God will "curse" you as punishment. Pastor Chuck Baldwin (a former Christian Zionist) joins today's Liberty Report to provide the counter-argument. Don't miss today's Liberty Report:
Video Transcript AI Summary
On the Liberty Report, Chuck Baldwin describes his journey. He credits Jerry Falwell as mentor; in 2007 his spirit was stirred and he concluded 'the Schofield's view of eschatology was totally, absolutely, and thoroughly wrong.' He withdrew from dispensationalism, paused speaking 2007-2014, and in 2014 began teaching 'Christ and the Pharisees.' He says '80% of evangelical pastors are in the dispensationalist Schofield Zionist camp.' He recounts ostracization: 'I lost every pastor friend that I had. Lost probably 75% of the support financially that I had gained over thirty years of speaking and preaching.' He argues the seed promise was fulfilled in Jesus: 'the seed promised to Abraham was not about a nation... it was about the Lord Jesus Christ.' He criticizes Netanyahu/Trump, calls Israel 'an albatross' and says 'the eight front is a war on free speech in The United States.' Contact: Libertyfellowshipmt.com.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you today.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Pole. How are you this morning? Doing well.
Speaker 0: Excellent. We have a very special guest today.
Speaker 1: Very excited. Yes.
Speaker 0: That's that's good. We're looking forward to this. And our special guest today is Chuck Baldwin. And we've known each other for a while, but more so in the last couple years, which is interesting. But, you know, we bribed each other.
He endorsed me for president, so I endorsed him for president. There you go. Good for You know, that's a conspiracy, I think. A conspiracy of ideas. So, anyway, Chuck, we're really glad to have you on.
And I was telling Daniel, I glanced at the articles that was in the on the Internet, the Wikipedia and all. Every article I looked always described you. They stereotyped you, an extreme right wingist. I've never seen anybody's articles written up that they didn't identify you. They they do that a lot, but I think you get the record.
They they they were hit. That to me means they're they're they're frightened by your by your, ability to present ideas, so they have to try to destroy those who have ideas by calling them name. But anyway, that's how it cropped up a whole lot. But, Jack, you've been in the fight for liberty for a long time. You've been in a ministry and continue to do that.
You're an expert on The Middle East both in a religious and a political sense. So welcome to our program today. We're delighted to have you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, doctor Paul. It is indeed my honor and privilege to be invited on your program. I I think the world of you. I believe you are the greatest US congressman in American history and I'm honored to be your friend.
Speaker 0: Well, I didn't even tell him to do that, and I didn't promise him. But he he stretched it a bit anyways. I know. I know.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 0: What okay. We wanna start off to get for for our audience to get to know you better because certainly, the part of the world that you've spent some time thinking about and writing about and preaching about, that is of course The Middle East and Israel and Christianity. So I I I of course, all you you and I identify, you know, greatly with our political views, which means that, the one thing that I like to know is how how you get started, and everybody has a slightly different story. You know, when it when the yeah. I saw the light when so and so I read this book and, or I got exposed here, her discernment.
So, anyway, how was it that you came to the present views that you have today? Is that something you've had a long time? Was there some one item that said, boy, he woke me up? Or is it something that sorta grew, in your mind and in your soul to come to these convictions?
Speaker 2: Yes. Well, remember that I graduated from what is now Liberty University in Lynchburg. Doctor Jerry Falwell was my my mentor and pastor. And I was in his first graduation class in 1975 from what is now Liberty University. And so he and I were very close.
After that, he spoke in my church down in Florida. At least four times, he wrote me up in his Liberty Journal. I was on his old time gospel hour television program. I flew with him in on his jet several times overseas and domestically. Later found out that jet was bought and paid for by the state of Israel.
But I I grew up under his mentorship and so I was very involved in the freedom fight right out the gate after graduating from college. Uh-huh. But you know I have my radio talk show which was syndicated nationwide. And in 02/2008, I ran for president after you had dropped out of the Republican primary at the insistence of many of your of your supporters. And I do appreciate so much your endorsement in that campaign.
And I remember that my running mate and I, Darryl Castle in 02/2008, were in your office in Washington DC during that period of time. I was privileged to introduce you to the audience at the mall in Washington DC. And again in a a rally in Reno, Nevada, I was honored to campaign for you together with with the people in Iowa. And then I campaigned with for you for you all by myself in South Carolina. And that was a very interesting experience.
So I I was engaged in the political process from almost the time I graduated from high school. I'm not I'm from college. But I did not understand the the Israel issue until much later. And it it started in 2007 for me.
Speaker 0: God.
Speaker 2: I raised in the the Zionist ideology, the dispensationalism, futurism, Schofieldism, Christian Zionism, call it whatever you will, that that's the only thing I knew. And I taught that for over thirty years. So I know a backwards and forwards. In 02/2007, however, my spirit began to be extremely stirred. Believe by God that something wasn't right.
Every time I tried to talk about the subject, every time I tried to mention Israel or the biblical prophecies pertaining thereto, I had a real check-in my spirit. And this went on for many months. I realized after a while that this was not something that was just a passing feeling, it was a work of God in my heart. I understood that the Schofield's view of eschatology was totally, absolutely, and thoroughly wrong. The problem with that was if that's wrong then what is right?
You know, it's a lot harder to earn to unlearn something than it is to learn something. And it took me a lot of years of of study and prayer. And I mean, I just delved into the Bible by itself. I didn't listen to videos or audios. I didn't read books.
I put all that aside. I mean, I had tons of all that. But God led me on my own. It wasn't anybody that the closest thing that I could say to someone was in 2008 when when we were in your office, Daryl and I, chatting about the things of the day. I don't remember exactly how the conversation went, but somehow another drifted over to the subject of Israel.
And you said something. It was a very brief comment. It was it was in passing. We didn't dwell on it. But what you said resonated with my my heart so much and it it led me to believe that I was on the right track and that what I had been teaching was in error, which I apologize for that in public many times and I apologized to people that I had taught dispensational futurism and I said, you know, I I taught error and I'll spend the rest of my life teaching truth.
And so what you said that was very profound in in my early days and putting me on the right track. I studied, studied, studied, studied. So from 2007 to 02/2014, I didn't even talk on the subject. And then in 02/2014, I brought my first three messages on Christ and the Pharisees. And that's the first three messages on our Israel package number one.
The very first foray into the subject. And I I began to speak more about it and talk more about it and and of course I've been doing that now for eleven years and thankfully I have been totally delivered from the bondage of of Christian Scientists which I consider it a devilish doctrine. And I believe it has done more harm to the cause of Christ. It has done more harm to liberty in our country. It has done more harm to constitutional government and all the liberty principles that you and I talk about all the time than any other single factor in The United States.
Now that's a big that's a big statement to make. But I look at everything from a spiritual lens and I really do believe that the pastors are the ones that set the compass morally, spiritually, ethically for the nation. And the fact that 80% of evangelical pastors are in the dispensationalist Schofield Zionist camp means that they are indoctrinating 80% of the evangelical population with all this skewed prophecy doctrines that's completely anti Christ, anti New Testament, anti New Covenant, and they're putting them in bondage to an alien power that is devilish in nature. And as a result, I believe we're reaping consequences politically and civilly and and and and and in ways Right. Our own domestic issues that direct directly relate to this falsehood.
Speaker 0: Chuck, I wanna get Daniel to join here. Daniel, welcome our guest directly, and I imagine you have a question for her.
Speaker 1: I do. Well, I have quite a few. I won't get to all of them, I'm sure, but I'm so delighted to we're so delighted to have you. I've followed you for a long time and admired you for a long time, and you've been comfort to myself and I'm sure a lot of other people in some dark times. But you were one of the more prominent individuals, pastors to come out against this, what I would call the Schofield heresy, back when you did.
And you took a lot of heat for it, a lot of heat. And I can only imagine because when people find their belief systems challenge is difficult because it's by nature not a necessarily irrational thing. It goes to something deeper than that. But I'm just curious now since you have this ten or so years ago made that change, and maybe particularly in the last couple of years with what we've seen in Gaza, do you notice more pastors like yourself, more congregations like yours starting to question this idea as you would almost call it a kind of a mental prison. Do you see things coming your way in this respect?
Speaker 2: You know, that's a great question. And Daniel, by the way, thank you. It's great to be with you as well. Yeah. The initial response in 2014 when I began going public with my theological positions, totally repudiating Schofield futurism, dispensationalism, Zionism, etcetera.
You can only imagine the the ramifications of that. I I mean, I remember that all my life I had been a dispensationalist. All my life I've been a Christian Zionist. All my life I had touted the line of Israel. My my peer group was all Zionists and pre millennial in their in their theology and in their eschatology.
So when I came out publicly and began repudiating this, with the exception of one or two, I lost every pastor friend that I had. Lost probably 75% of the support financially that I had gained over thirty years of speaking and preaching. So the ostracization of my position was immediate and it was very very brutal. The financial cost was unbelievable. I anticipated some fallout but I never anticipated the reaction that that I got.
For the first two to three years after I became public, I really did not know if I was gonna be able to continue financially and and and survive. That because I mean that's all I had known and and my head a very large network of supporters and they they fell away by the droves left and right. The pastors disowned me. A lot of them are still using their platforms to publicly rebuke me and call me a heretic and all those kind of things. So the first several years were extremely difficult and I didn't know too many people in my field from, you know, from the ministerial level that were saying what I was saying.
There were a few out there of course, but by and large it was John the Baptist lone voice in the wilderness kind of thing. And but you know, I knew I was right and I knew that this was God's truth and I had to I had to learn this, I had to teach this for posterity that that people needed to know that that there was another position and it was a position that had been the the status quo in evangelical Christianity for for over eighteen hundred years of church history. You know, the the the whole premillennial Zionist philosophy did not come into being until the middle eighteen hundreds, especially with the life of C. I. Scofield who wrote the famous or infamous, if you wanna look at it, Schofield Reference Bible which was produced in nineteen That o was the thing that really changed the game theologically.
Churches and Christian colleges began to pick this up and regurgitate this to their classes in college, to their congregations and churches. And within a very quick period of time, it became the dominant eschatological position of evangelicals and it still is to this day. So but until that point the church never believed this. This is a brand new doctrine and we can't we have to put it in perspective of time. So I knew that I was I was right to pursue.
God had given me that that courage and and resolve. So I just kept preaching. I kept teaching and we kept putting out videos and we kept putting out columns. And now then, I'll tell you, you asked me about the reaction. They I am excited literally about what I see going on in the last six months.
But for for for my work over the last three to four years, all of a sudden people began to understand of the message of the new covenant. Understanding that this pseudo Israel state in Palestine is not a reincarnated Old Testament Israel. It's a satanic counterfeit that the devil is using to deceive evangelicals and take them out of out of the fight literally for truth and liberty and constitutional government and all the things our country was was predicated on. In the last couple years has been so excited. Our outreach has grown exponentially Daniel to the point that I find it really unbelievable how many people are are hearing the message and how many people are responding positively.
And I really think that the days of Christian Zionism are numbered. Mhmm. And I don't know how to do the numbering, but I do believe that the days are numbered.
Speaker 0: To Daniel? Go ahead. Okay. I have a I have a quote from the senator Cruz from Texas. And, actually, you probably have covered an explanation of this, but I was I wanted to read the quote and get your opinion about it because, he was interviewed by Tucker.
And Tucker wasn't pushing this, but it looked like, Cruz was wanting to get a message out. So he says the article I was reading says, without even being asked the question directly, Cruz insisted on telling Carlson why he vowed to be a staunch defender of Israel. And, you know, I I guess so far you could be a supporter of Israel or you you know, whatever. But staunch and political and arrest that bothers us a lot. He said, and this is Cruz.
Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible. Those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. I wanna be on the side of blessing side of things. Make a comment if you please.
Speaker 2: Yes. He is touting the the typical Schofield dispensational line. That's from Genesis twelve three. And of course, historically, that verse always was known to be a promise directly to Abraham. It certainly was not a promise to a group of white Europeans who migrated to Palestine and four thousand years later, and that somehow the blessing of God was depending upon a blessing of people that didn't even exist for another four thousand years.
That's the most ludicrous laughable interpretation of of scripture that that is imaginable. It's it's amazing that I used to believe that and so many people still do. The fact of other is though that this is the problem that Zionist Christians make. They interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament instead of the other way around. It is the New Testament that explains the Old Testament.
And so they're still caught up in the Old Covenant. And anything in the old covenant trumps whatever's in the New Testament. And so they use this verse to to the man Abram in Genesis chapter 12 and apply that to the Zionist Jews in in the Ashkenazi Jews actually in in Palestine today. But anybody that knows the new covenant understands clearly that in Galatians chapter three verse 16 of the Apostle Paul is absolutely crystal clear that the seed promised to Abraham was not about a nation. It was not about a generation of people at all.
It was about the Lord Jesus Christ and that Jesus of the Messiah, the savior of the world, he fulfilled the the seed promise to Abraham. And this is the the the thing that I find almost sacrilegious, doctor Paul. When you really when you really delve into what they're saying, they are saying that here we are, new covenant Christians who owe our faith to Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection on the cross. We're called Christians. We are disciples of Christ.
He gave us his new covenant, a new better and everlasting covenant. He abolished the old covenant. That's in Ephesians two fifteen. And gave us the new covenant. And that in this new covenant under Christ that somehow another we're going to be blessed by blessing a nation of foreigners halfway around the world who do not even accept the Messiah, who most of them are atheists and antichrists theologically.
And somehow another that by politically blessing this atheist antichrist group of eschinage Jews that we're gonna be blessed by God, That that is so repulsive to the new covenant theology of the New Testament because the Bible tells us that all of our blessings as Christians are in Jesus Christ. All of the blessed, blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the merciful. All of these attributes come with a lot to to us through Christ. Jesus is the blessing that we have and there is no greater blessing that we need than the blessing of Christ and the salvation he gives us, the new covenant that he gives us, the the forgiveness and everything that he provides through his death on the cross. And so it's really to in my mind, it's it's not only ignorance of New Testament theology, but it's also sacrilege of Christ's work on the cross.
You say like, what? After what Jesus did and everything we have in Christ and giving us the Holy Spirit and the word of God and the new covenant, we're God's not gonna bless us unless we bless this political group of of extremist Jewish supremacist in Palestine that the dependence of God depends on us blessing them. That that's that's ridiculous. We are blessed in Christ. All of our blessings come from Christ.
We don't need any blessings beyond that. So it it it is a gross distortion and I use the word sacrilege even because I think it diminishes the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the new new covenant that he provided for us.
Speaker 1: It certainly denies his salvific power, to do that and also turns God into a real estate agent, is pretty bizarre. Very
Speaker 2: good. Very good.
Speaker 1: But I want to, maybe move back a little bit more toward current events based on what we've established now in the time we have left. And and I think it's still related to this to this this philosophical discussion we're having because and I was gonna ask this question anyway, and I turned to your column that just came out today, and it actually was exactly what my first question was going to be. You know, on the one hand, we must we are demanded to support this secular state in the middle of the Middle East or else, yet here we have, and you cover it very well. Your title of your column is Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump declare war on The United States. Unless one think this is hyperbole, it's literally true, and we've covered this on the show this past week.
We saw the meeting where Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, got together with influencers, social media influencers, many of whom are on the payroll. We have since learned $7,000 per post. Wouldn't mind getting in on that action, but I don't wanna sell my soul for 7,000. Nevertheless, he said he openly referred to this as a war. We need to use the tools of war against our enemies.
He's telling these social media influencers this. And then he says, specifically, the TikTok sale. We've gotta make sure that works right, I e, in our favor, and we've gotta work on x. Now what he's referring to very obviously is the suppression of speech in The United States, the suppression of our first amendment in The United States. But he goes even further, and you mentioned this in your column.
He says, we are at war in the neighborhood on seven different fronts. It is now time for us to open an eighth front, and that eighth front is a war on free speech in The United States. He was very clear about this. What kind of an ally, what kind of our greatest friend who we've given $34,000,000,000 over the last two years openly talks about opening a front against free speech in The United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, anyone who thinks that Israel is our greatest ally is is either deluded or they're lying. Israel has never been our ally. Go back to the the Pollard days when mister Pollard successfully stole extremely critical information and and detailed reports and analysis of American security, sent it back to Israel. Of course, he served time for that, but then he was released and he went back to Israel and got a hero's welcome.
And they treated him like royalty and have ever since. And he did more damage to our intelligence network at that time, maybe since any time in US history. They've taken things that they've stolen and gotten surreptitiously from The United States and sold it to countries like China and other hostile states of The United States. Israel has never been a friend of our country. They are an albatross.
They are an enemy. And the longer we support them, the more we get dragged into their incessant perpetual wars of aggression. And I think that's their goal. They they know they can't pull this off by themselves. They wanna drag The United States into the war with them.
And we've been fighting Israel's wars for at least all of this century. I go back to g w Bush and the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, all that was for Israel. That was that was all planned and concocted by Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government. They wanted The United States to do their fighting for them. They wanted The United States to kill their enemies for them.
And that's exactly what we're still doing today. They want us to to fight Iran for them. It's everything is for them. It's all for Israel. It's not for The United States.
Iran poses no security risk to The United States Of America. But we want they want us to engage for them on their behalf war that will cost not only trillions of dollars economically, but the lives and has of thousands of our young men and women in uniform fighting for reason. That's that's not a friend. So this and the idea that you're bringing up, which is a very good one and why I wrote the column today, it's absolute it's actually more than just abridging free speech. Donald Trump is doing that.
You know, he's taken the lead in trying to crack down on free speech especially when it comes to Israel. But but what they're doing now is they've realized they the Israelis, they realized that they've lost the narrative worldwide. I mean, look at what's going on in Western Europe, Daniel.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Millions and millions and million uncountable numbers of protesters all over the major cities in Western Europe. They completely shut down the state of I mean, of Italy, the nation of Italy last weekend. That literally, no buses were moving, no trucks were moving. The entire nation was shut down by multiple millions of protesters throughout the country. That's going on in Paris.
It's going on in London. It's going on in Germany. All over the the the West, they're coming out against they're they're sick and tired of the genocide in Gaza. And and so they've lost the narrative in the in Western Europe. They've lost the narrative among progressive young people here in The United States.
When you look at the polls under the age of 35, it's it's humongous. It's 90% opposed to the state of Israel, especially on the democrat side of the aisle. So so the the gen z and the democrat side, they have already turned against Israel. So the only real group of positive vibrations that are left for the State Of Israel comes from Charlie Cook's audience. It it comes from the young mega evangelical Christian conservative young people in the college campuses.
They're the they're really the the last bastion of support for Israel. The older generations have already rejected Israel and and now then they they saw what's happening with Charlie Kirk beginning to have a change of heart about Israel beginning to come out and and say that he was rejecting Bill Ackman's brow beating, you know, to bring him in line to the Zionist issue. And he rejected Bidman Netanyahu's 100 plus million dollars to bribe him to toe the line. He was getting frustrated with the pressure. He was getting angry and insulted by the way they were trying to control him.
He told Candace Owens, I I'm out of here. I'm done with this. I will not be bullied like this. Coincidentally now, they was assassinated forty eight hours later.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So what they're doing in Israel now is trying to buy TikTok and trying to get x and and trying to get the platforms of social media where the younger generation is and where these young conservative Republicans are, the last bastion of support for Israel. And they wanna dominate the social media to propagandize that generation to try and salvage the the the hemorrhaging that's going on in America toward Israel because they see the tea leaves. I mean, give it another ten years or so and who's gonna be left that's gonna support Israel? The young people are gonna be going into congress. They're gonna be going to business.
They're gonna be the leaders of our country. Mhmm. And they've turned against Israel. What does that bode for Israel in the future? So this is an act of desperation
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: To try and garner back this group of people that that were, you know, changing their position on Israel.
Speaker 0: You know, Chuck, the media tried to pump up the people by saying there's optimism to be looked at and things are getting better. They have just signed a early stage of a major peace treaty, and it's been predicted by the administration and all the planners that, on Monday, the hostages would be released, and that's the first major step on the road to peace. Now I need a short answer on this because we have to finish, but I don't think this is complicated. But I just I just think, you know, a lot of people still the the total media was flooded with that. But what you're saying that there's a breakthrough, and we we we talk about it all the time, especially on the young people.
But I I would say that, the odds of these predictions aren't very good. But just just tell me briefly what you think are the chances are peace that will break out on Monday, and there'll be some changes and hostages of real in a in a real sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I I think it's zero. Netanyahu himself is the greatest impediment to peace negotiations in the region. He is the one man that has resisted peace negotiations time and time and time again. Benjamin Netanyahu unfortunately controls the US government, and it doesn't matter what Donald Trump says.
You know, I think an indication of what we're saying here is after this supposed peace deal was reached, the president Trump told commanded Benjamin Netanyahu to cease fire to to stop bombing Gaza. Well, what happened after that? Benjamin Netanyahu increased the bombing of Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu is gonna do what he wants to do. It doesn't matter what what a piece of paper says.
It doesn't matter what Donald Trump says. It doesn't matter what any negotiated settlement says. He is determined to proceed with the greater Israel project.
Speaker 0: Right. Chuck, Sorry sorry to interrupt, but our time has run out. I I do want you to give, an address or a way if somebody wants to stay in touch with you. Give out your address, and then we'll be signing off.
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you very much for that, doctor Paul. Libertyfellowshipmt.com. Libertyfellowshipmt.com.
Speaker 0: Okay. And once again, I wanna thank you very much for coming on. I am sure you'll stir up some more conversation. And I wanted to I want to thank our viewers for tuning in today for this special program. Please return soon.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
My Weekly Update: Who Killed Charlie Kirk? https://t.co/P0ciqAsiJc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Who killed Charlie Kirk? At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense. Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader? We don't know. But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. Rest in peace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Ron Paul weekly report. Who killed Charlie Kirk? I had the pleasure of appearing on Charlie Kirk's program a few times over the years, and I always found him to be polite, respectful, and genuinely interested in ideas. Even in an areas where we might not have agreed, he listened carefully. He was a strong advocate of free speech, and he made a career of trying to convince the youth of the value of free speech and dialogue regardless of political differences.
At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. And as such, he had enormous influence over the future of the conservative movement and even the Republican Party. As I discovered during my Republican presidential runs, the youth of this country are truly inspired by the ideas of liberty, peace, and prosperity. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense.
Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge president Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran. He was rebuffed by president Trump, Carlson informed us. Likewise, conservative podcaster, Candace Owens, who had was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a spiritual crisis and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America first noninterventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in The Middle East. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader?
We don't know. If anything, those seeking to prevent the ideas of peace from breaking out would wish to cover it up as they have done in so many past political killings. As I recounted in my most recent book, the surreptitious coup who stole western civilization, the turbulent nineteen sixties saw several killings of major US figures including JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontational mentality. The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power.
The power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas, they prefer to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course. More than sixty years after the murder of president Kennedy, the vast majority of the American people do not believe the official story of how he was killed and why. Truth will eventually break through even when the wall of lies seems impenetrable. If it is true that Charlie Kirk was preparing to shift his organization toward a foreign policy embraced by our founders, the killing was even more tragic.
But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. That may be his most important legacy. Rest in peace.
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a leaked Israeli database showing that the conflict in Gaza is resulting in nearly nine civilian deaths for every militant killed, highlighting a war on civilians rather than just Hamas. Additionally, there's ongoing discussion about "security guarantees" in Ukraine involving Zelensky and the EU.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
A leaked Israeli official database reveals the horrific truth about the genocide in Gaza: Far from a war on Hamas, Israel has declared a war on civilians, killing nearly nine non-combatants for every one militant. Details were revealed in an Israeli news publication and they confirm the greatest fears of those who care about humanity. Also today: in Ukraine, Zelensky and the EU play the "security guarantees" shell game. Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
On markets, Powell said "policy has to have some adjustment," sparking gold gains and debate between Trump’s push for lower rates and Powell’s caution. Warren Buffett reportedly "invested $3,900,000,000" anticipating rate cuts, a move critics say would "cause more inflation" as money is borrowed to keep rates low. This, they argue, reflects a rigged system and the prospect of a "crack up boom" as spending accelerates.
In Gaza, an Israeli internal database (reported by 972/Guardian) shows "at least eighty three percent of Gaza dead were civilians" and that "Israel believed it had killed some 8,900 militants," contradicting official casualty ratios; a chart shows "'83% are civilians, women, children, infants, unborn children.'"
Regarding Ukraine, Zelensky seeks "Western Security Guarantees," and Marc Rutte touts "Robust security guarantees" as "essential" while NATO troops are discussed; Lavrov calls such proposals "unacceptable" and a "road to nowhere." The speakers urge staying out of entangling alliances.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to be with you today.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Paul. How are you this morning?
Speaker 0: Very well. Thank you. And lots of excitement in the markets this morning. The chief money manager, and that's not Trump yet. I guess behind the scenes, he might be.
He wants to be. But Powell had a statement because he's up at Jackson Hole, and they're having a big meeting today, and he's giving a big speech. But he said that maybe policy has to have some adjustment. That was his statement, basically. But for weeks now, it's been the anticipation that's been in the news all over.
What's he gonna do? Trump's for a little higher lower interest rates and and, powers for maintaining rates as they are. So he's for higher interest rates. And all of a sudden, there's gonna be adjustment. So I wonder wonder what that'll do to the markets.
Well, there was a bit of an explosion because gold has been hovering around $50 increase just on that one word. We need to have some adjustments, which means that maybe he will, you know, lower interest rates, And that's why everybody is happy. Now there are some investors who know all about how this system works. One is Warren Buffett. Mhmm.
He he doesn't represent one strong field, but he understands the system, and he knows and and anticipates and understands the Federal Reserve. So he's been saving money for months and months and months that he's anticipating what the Fed's going to do. So he just they just didn't Bob just invested $3,900,000,000, a little chunk of money because he believes that the interest rates are are going to go down. But for me, interest rates going down is just more anticipation that's gonna be more inflation because peep they love this, but they don't realize what it's gonna do to the to the average person. It's it's it's gonna cause more inflation.
And because they have to print a lot of money to keep interest rates low, and they never talk about it to decrease spending. So it's the establishment, and there are some people who say, well, you have to be nimble. This is the way the markets work, buy and sell, and whoever can outguess the Fed the most gets gets the most gravy. But there there are some who are very close to the Fed, and it's been known for them to leak their information. And there's a lot of anticipation.
The whole thing is, ultimately, they don't know what's going to happen because I think when I see these numbers that that are skyrocketing and just more and more inflation that they're just working for, you know, the effort to move it toward the crack up boom. And when they when they start spending billions and billions of dollar AI, I think, what where's all this money comes from? There was an article this morning said, well, it's not coming from any place. It's all borrowed. So so that's part of what happens when the system's out of control.
I think this just verifies so much of the opinion of Austrian economists that it's a failed system because they don't know it. It's rigged to have a lot of spending, and the market is out there and it's whispering, shouting, you're gonna have to pay for it. You're gonna pay for it. And sometimes when I see these things, there's there's gonna be some payment, and that'll come up suddenly. And I think that it's probably not too far off.
So that that is something that we may hear. There may be news during our program today. We're broadcasting now, but, I don't know exactly what time Powell speaks, but he will. And he might say, yes. We're gonna make adjustments today.
Oh, you are. You're really gonna do it. So words words count a whole lot. So it's it's a guessing game on what they really mean. But I think the most discouraging thing about this is is Trump Trump is winning the argument over Powell.
Powell was not not reserved. He was an Austrian. He was a hot sound money, but at least he says, let's not go too fast. And yet Trump is a cheerleader, and he's a cheerleader for for lower interest rates. He's a cheerleader for a big business, and AI money is available because interest rates are lower.
They they there's a lot of debt even building because of that, but they need lower interest rates to continue this charade. And so I think I would anticipate in the next couple of weeks, there's gonna be a lot of excitement that we might be talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, keep an eye out for that, doctor Paul. Well, the next thing we're gonna talk about is something even more grim than our economic situation, and that is a new report that's out. Now there was an Israeli internal database in their intelligence system that was leaked. And if you put that first clip up, this is an Israeli publication, plus nine seven two.
They together with the Guardian went through this database and looked through it, and what they found, doctor Paul, is appalling, to say the least. Israeli army database suggests that at least eighty three percent of Gaza dead were civilians. Classified intelligence from May reveals Israel believed it had killed some 8,900 militants in its attacks on Gaza, indicating a proportion of civilian slaughter with few parallels in modern warfare, a joint investigation finds. Truly grotesque and horrific, and it does raise a lot of questions, Really, think, and should raise a lot of questions into the post October 7 Israeli activities because there are a lot of questions about what happened on October 7. Our good friend Max Blumenthal at the Grey Zone has done some tremendous reporting on what did and did not happen on October 7.
But I think the big question that needs to be asked, especially when you look at this data, doctor Paul, is when you're killing almost nine civilians for every one militant, the question is, is this really about a war against Hamas, or is it as a lot of people claim about ethnic cleansing and simply killing every single person in Gaza?
Speaker 0: Sometimes I like to include is a war against ourselves because it's all gonna hurt us when the payment is due. And, yeah, I still what I hope for is that it wakes up more people. When will the American people wake up? You say, oh, no. It's just those people running the show, and they keep sending that money.
No. The American people elect the congress, and congress tolerates it and votes some money or allows the Fed to print the money. So there's a lot of responsibility to go around. And yet what we need is a a greater emphasis on understanding of, you know you know, the principle of natural law. You know, we as individuals can't lie, cheat, steal, or kill.
But here here we have governments doing this colluding together. And just thinking the list of this, what a lie. But but I I keep thinking that there are this I think was released by somebody that wouldn't consider themselves Zionist. You know? It it's a Israeli source.
It's Israeli source. Yeah. Yeah. And and they're telling me, why wouldn't this wake up that there's so many good people in Israel and so many good Americans who don't want this, but it seems to be overwhelming. How can we stop all this?
Well, if people people will stop it, unfortunately, when the market tells them they're gonna have to stop it because we won't be able to continue to send this money. Right now, you know, we're short of weapons because we gave all our weapons away to fight wars in The Middle East and Ukraine, and, it's it's never ending. When it when the real crunch comes, it's gonna be, how did we ever do that? How did we ever get away with it? It was an illusion that we were we have been and they're still as wealthy as anybody ever has been and that nobody can conquer us.
I don't think it's true story. I think there's always an end to this type of financing and war mongering.
Speaker 1: You know, the Americans like to think that we're a great country because we're a good country. We're a kind people. You know, we're, you know, essentially a Christian country in that respect, but it really is disheartening and hard to believe that so many, for example, pro life people who helped elect Donald Trump, When it comes to pro life, if anyone who's more than three seconds out of the womb, well, that's out the door. They don't care. Or people overseas that they are being taught by, I don't know, their pastors or someone else don't really count as humans.
Remember, even our own ambassador to Israel, Huckabee, said Palestinians aren't a people. You know, they're not even a people. Then what are they? I guess it's okay to kill them then. Well, let's look at a couple more things from this from this report from from nine seven two.
The second one now, this isn't a this is I've already mentioned this. An internal in Israeli intelligence database shows this, and it was an investigation from 972 and local call. Those are two Israeli publications. And, of course, The Guardian is a UK publication. Now go to the next one.
Figures obtained from the database, which records the deaths of militants from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad contradict by a huge margin the public statements of the Israeli army and government officials about the war, which have generally claimed a one to one or two to one ratio of civilian to militant casualties. Instead, the classified data backs up the findings of several studies suggesting Israel's bombardment of Gaza has killed civilians at a rate with few parallels in modern warfare. Now here's a chart that really brings to home what we're talking about. That black area are the militants, and all that red, that 83% are civilians, women, children, infants, unborn children that have been killed. And so what they're saying is essentially that Israel has been lying to entire time about how many civilians are killing.
This database leaked out and showed the truth.
Speaker 0: Yes. And it it's hard to visualize exactly when and if if it comes, you know, the waking up of the people, American citizens all the way to the people that live in Israel and neighboring countries over there. So and I think the I think the mastermind who has made this available to the people who will do harm is really the ability to get people to think you cannot say one single word against Israel. And we think some something of our first amendment, and we on quite a few occasions will be pretty strong critics of of our own government. So there shouldn't be anything evil and, know, conspiratorial about somebody making criticism.
And I I I understand that there's a lot of Israelis that this is getting to be too much.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: And that it's hard to predict and say, well, it's it's winding down. Maybe there'll be a peace treaty, and Trump's doing a good job on bringing people to to the peace table. But right now, it's it's not very optimistic that very soon that there will be agreement here.
Speaker 1: You know, as noninterventionists, we understand that we don't really have the ability to tell Israel what to do. But what we do have the ability to do is to tell our own government, stop paying for this. Stop robbing us. Stop robbing taking the money out of our pockets to do something that we find absolutely abhorrent. And if Trump were able to stop tomorrow with the money and the weapons, the war would have to stop tomorrow as well.
So I think we would be more critical of our own government than the Israeli government. They're doing horrible things, but we're the ones paying for it. Which one is morally the worst? You know?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and, you know, the the whole the whole thing is the way we pay for it is a monetary system that is corrupt. It's based on fraud. It's based on debt. It based on taxing mostly the middle class people.
And there's a limit to it. And that's why, of course, Mises saw this many years ago that these kind of conditions leads to what is he called a crack up boom. People just give up on the money. And there's people very, very frustrated now because they're told that there is no inflation. And but you talk to the housewives and people have to go by.
My goodness. This is, you know, what what what what have to do. So even the numbers and there's been reports, you know, on the labor statistics that that they lie.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and which which is only a benefit in the sense that more people will wake up that they just can't believe everything our government tells us. There's very little that we can say, boy, we could take that to the bank. We better listen because they're really leveling with us. And yet we do know a few people here and there in the congress, the senate, and even in the administration that are very serious about it. But right now, they're not in the driver's seat.
The spenders are in the driver's seat. The interventionists overseas and fighting all these wars, they're still in charge. But as our budget weakens, so will the the appetite and the ability to continue this policy.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Couldn't come sooner. Soon enough, I should say. The next thing we're gonna cover is the other big war that that we're involved in, unfortunately, and continue to be involved in. If you skip ahead to Zelensky wants Western Security Guarantees, this is written by our good friend Dave DeCamp over at antiwar.com.
And this is his whole struggle. This is it's incredible because, you know, doctor Paul, one of the reasons that Russia did go into Ukraine is that they were talking about expanding NATO. That's what finally got Russia to say, look. We've had enough. We didn't like it when you started expanding after the end of the Cold War, and you said you you promised that you wouldn't, and you did anyway.
But when you continue that expansion now right into Ukraine and our doorstep, this is something we can't tolerate. We view it as an existential threat, so we're gonna take military action to stop it. So the impetus was NATO involvement for Ukraine. And now that Russia has essentially won the war and everyone everyone admits that they've won that they're winning the war certainly, now it comes back up again that they wanna send in NATO troops into Ukraine for security guarantees. And people think that the Russians are gonna say, oh, well, okay.
We won the war, but you can still have NATO troops inside Ukraine. You know, it just makes you wonder what's wrong with the Europeans.
Speaker 0: Well, I think this whole mess, the word I wrote down the sentence is they're playing with fire. Yeah. And I thought, well, maybe they're playing with bombs. And then I thought, could they be playing with nukes?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No kidding.
Speaker 0: And it's it's unbelievable what people tolerate and wanna you know, it's not in my backyard. I'm not gonna pay it. But it is in their backyard because they're paying for it, you know, and and that that should wake everybody up. But, unfortunately, you know, we have a lot of false information that comes and what we have to do. And, you know, they use these wonderful terms.
You're you're you're you're not a humanitarian. You have to do such things. And you're you're not you're you're not a patriotic person. You're you're just supporting your troops, and they have to police the world. Don't ever do any say anything that will hurt.
But, you know, you you heard about my suggestion to protect the troops, bring them home.
Speaker 1: Bring them home. Bring home. Well, let's listen to probably one of the worst NATO secretaries general that we've seen, certainly among the least clever. Let's put it that way. This is Marc Rutte, a failed Dutch politician who, when the Europeans fail, they always seem to get a promotion.
Now he's head of NATO. Why don't we we'll grab our earpieces and listen to what Rutte is talking about when it comes to NATO security guarantees for Ukraine. He really is living in another dimension, doctor Paul. Let's let's go ahead and play this clip.
Speaker 2: President Trump has made this a priority, not only breaking the deadlock with Putin, but making clear that The United States will indeed be involved in providing security guarantees for Ukraine. Robust security guarantees will be essential and this is we are now working to define. So that when the time comes, you for you to enter that bilateral meeting, you have the unmistakable force of Ukraine's friends behind you, ensuring that Russia will uphold any deal and will never ever again attempt to take one square kilometer of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So he's acting here as if Ukraine won and they're gonna punish Russia when in fact the opposite is true. I mean, it's it's just purely delusional, doctor Paul. And the idea that he's go and he's not gonna NATO's not gonna put troops in there. They're not it's just bluster. The whole thing is bluster.
Speaker 0: You know what? Really bugs me in a disappointment is some of the progress they made after the Cold War ended. You know, there was a little bit of belief that NATO would live up to their promise, The United States would live up to the promises. And then there was, you know, some some some economic breakthroughs, the sharing of energy and the selling of energy. But if they would have just emphasized that and permitted it, made it legal, I mean, we'd be so far along with this.
But now, you know, it's blowing up the bridges and blowing up the oil, the pipelines and the whole world, all that energy and effort to do such evil. And it's just it it just is so disappointing because it doesn't have to be this way. And I think reasonable people I I still believe that most people are reasonable if they hear the message. But and that's it. This is why I keep my fingers crossed about the Internet and all because a lot of a lot of nonsense goes out on the Internet, but there's a lot of good stuff that goes out on Internet trying to reach people and alert people.
And it's it's been it's been useful in many ways, But right now, you know, the the prevailing attitude is what we ask, we're gonna stick with it. But I think we could see some breaking in that. They support for for Ukraine and even in The Middle East. So let's let's hope that's true.
Speaker 1: Maybe. Yeah. Let's hope so. But, you know, the whole the whole problem that Trump has is we've talked about it. Everyone talks about it.
He listens to the last person he spoke with. So he went to Alaska and had this great meeting with Putin. I believe they both mutually respect each other. They had this great meeting apparently according to what they said, they're gonna work together. They're gonna solve this conflict.
And then came Zelensky and the Europeans, and they piled into his office. If you've seen that photo, we talked about it. And they were talking to him about, well, we have to have security guarantees for Ukraine. We have to before we make a deal, we have to have these security guarantees. And and Trump said, okay.
Well, that that sounds good. I guess that sounds alright. Not realizing what they mean, not taking on board, that they're talking about putting NATO troops into Ukraine against the will of Russia. They somehow think that Russia would accept it. And so this is what happened yesterday, and I think this was a pretty clear signal to both Trump, to The US, and to the Europeans when the Russians hit a factory on the very, very western end of Ukraine, near the Hungarian border, and it was actually an American factory, an American owned factory that manufactures parts for Ukraine's military, specifically, the drones that they use and manufactures parts for it.
So it's a legitimate military target, but they somehow probably thought that because it was American owned, they would get by and not be bombed. Well, the Russians gave them a different story and blew the whole thing up saying, listen, guys. We're not going to accept you doing this. You can't come in here. You can't bring NATO into Ukraine, and we can hit wherever we want.
I think it's a it's certainly a message that should be received.
Speaker 0: Zeliski walked in there, made me think he thought he was the collection agency. Yeah. And that he was owed this, said that we should just roll over and give him what he wants. And they believe it was justified, But, you know, the whole thing is he was he was coming he came across as not even a mediocre IRS agent. He came across with a with a tone that it's their entitlement to it.
That is that is absolutely bizarre where they come up with it. And nobody can if if if the one annoying thing was when they bring him up and they let him have, you know, a floor speech at the House of Representatives, He had more time than I ever got.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, our good friend Larry Johnson put out a piece today, and he quoted a Steve Bryan. And I'll just if I can read this, Russia's reaction came quickly. If you could find that clip and put it up.
Because this whole talk about putting NATO troops into Ukraine, you know, Russia probably scratched his head. So here's what Brian wrote. Russia's reaction came quickly and rejected foreign participation in security guarantees for Ukraine. Speaking about the possibility of foreign troops being deployed on Ukrainian territory, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow has always viewed this as unacceptable, quote, and I hope they understand that this would be absolutely unacceptable for Russia and for all sensible political forces in Europe, he said. He went on to say that such proposals are a road to nowhere, and I think that's exactly what the Europeans want.
They want Ukraine to fight to the last man just like the neocons here in The US.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Comprehending that is very difficult since it makes so little sense from our viewpoint. Yeah. And to to the sense of most people who have half of a brain. Yeah.
But but they they they tend to go along with it. But the opposition is overwhelming. You know? It's some places, people get shot for. In some places, even like people in this country, you know, can get punished.
If you take the wrong position in our colleges, they have it where they can blackmail them. They say, well, we've given you all this money. You have federal money, so we can tell you what you can teach and and what your who your speakers are going to be. Yeah. So it is the whole system of interventionism and redistribution of wealth with the governments being too strong.
And I I think that there should one thing somebody what I'd like to see is a new congressman coming in and and and there you'll have trouble getting them to obey the constitution completely. But what about you saying, don't ever vote for expanding the size and scope of government. Don't vote for anything unless it's truly gonna reduce the size of government. But and they talk a lot. Just thinking of the last year, how much talk there's been in the effort in six months, and yet the spending is skyrocketing.
And, of course, that's why I started the program off by saying everybody wants lower interest rates. You can print faster, and then these are the rules. And the as long as the world will take our dollars, we'll do it. But the world is getting a little bit nervous about taking our dollars. And there was a revolt against the dollar in 1971, and major events occurred.
But I think the next major event occurring with the dollar will be a lot more serious than what happened in 1971.
Speaker 1: Well, let's hope you're right. But I'm gonna close out and thank everyone for watching the show. Please, whatever platform you're watching it on, hit that thumbs up and like, and please subscribe to the Ron Paul Liberty Report on whatever channel you watch us as well. Over to you, doctor Paul. Very good.
Speaker 0: I wanna finish by saying there's one term the founders used and we should think about and use it. Stay out of entangling alliances. If you wanna look for them, just look to The Middle East and Ukraine and so many other places that we've been entangled. We should deentanglize ourselves and make everything else voluntary, and then the constitution will be very easy to enforce. Wanna thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Please come back soon.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Dozens of Members of the US House are on their way to Israel on an AIPAC-paid trip after Speaker Johnson - also in Israel - called August recess early to avoid a vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's resolution to release the Epstein files. Priorities? Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss a Wall Street Journal headline about manufacturing sputtering despite Trump's pledges, attributing it to tariffs and a failure to address debt, regulations, and wars. They anticipate rising unemployment due to overstimulation of the monetary system and excessive spending, advocating for free markets over political intervention. The rising price of gold is noted as a reflection of economic issues.
The conversation shifts to US lawmakers' support for Israel, highlighting a trip to Israel by Republican and Democratic members of Congress sponsored by APAC. They criticize the lawmakers for prioritizing a foreign country over their constituents and for supporting Israel's actions in Gaza, despite growing disapproval among Americans. Speaker Johnson's remarks about a religious obligation to support Israel are challenged.
Amazon Web Services giving the Trump administration a $1,000,000,000 coupon is discussed as an example of corporatism and political influence. The speakers criticize interventionism and bipartisan deals that compromise liberty. They also mention a clip from Redacted promoting an upcoming Ron Paul Institute event. They express optimism about the movement for liberty and non-interventionism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Paul. How are you this morning? Doing good. Good.
Speaker 0: How are you doing? Quite well. I'm gonna start off with a little economic meandering around what's what's going on because you hear good good news if you if, you know, there's a lot of press now that favors the president compared to before, but there's this is true. There's, there's a confusion on both sides of the aisle. But I wanna mention one headline I saw from The Wall Street Journal this morning.
Trump pledged to bring back manufacturing. The sector is sputtering. Uh-oh. Your suggestion is maybe it's not as good as as planned. And, of course, that sort is my position because I don't like terrorists.
I don't think they work. And because it they could find some things that seem to help doesn't mean that that's gonna settle. I think a lot of people did things in correcting and preparing for the tariff, and that gave some numbers a boost to it. But this is a this is a bold promise, but there's been a lot of bold promises.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But it it doesn't deal with debt or regulations or the wars that are going on. It doesn't deal with that at all. It has to do with manipulation and putting pressure on allies and our non allies to do our bidding. That will they'll spend more money here. It will change the balance of payments, and we will make sure the dollar stays strong, and it will defend the world.
They don't challenge if if they can't challenge it, they just ignore it. So this promise, I think, is just something that is going to get worse because I think as and I think there was another economic report today on unemployment. Last week, you know, there was all this excitement, you know, of fudging the figures on how bad it was. Well, I think the unemployment is is gonna get bad because of exactly when and where and how is not known. But it is well known and well established at the Austrian viewpoint about overstimulation with monetary system and spending gives a boom, but it's destined to fall.
And I think what we're facing is the awakening up of of this has been a big boom. You know, you could you could describe ever since World War two. We have lived on borrowed money and absolutely since '71. So it it is a, in many ways, a huge bubble that the market has control of and all this pledging of spending and doing these kind of things and and fixing it without dealing with the problem isn't going to work. So we have to keep working hard, Daniel, to introduce people to the ideas of markets are smarter than politicians.
And we need less politicians telling us what has to be done and letting people, you know, work in the marketplace. And that is is something I think is gonna happen happen soon that more people will be aware of it because one reflection of this is the dollar's value, the deficit, and the price of gold. And the price of gold just happens to be, you know, going up as a measurement of what is going on. And it it even even surprise doesn't surprise me, but it it still catches my attention because it was predictable. But I guess most people, at least I was always hoping maybe it would get this bad.
And then when when Musk came out, I thought, well, there's some, I think, serious thinking about it. And there were some good ideas, but it hasn't turned into a shrinkage of the spending or the deficit. So that's why I have to turn around not thinking much is gonna happen. Something will have to be done. But we have some other problems too, some political problems going on in Washington.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We do, doctor Paul. And the next story, is our our our our first major story that we're doing today. I mean, not long ago, this would be a lot more controversial. This topic would be.
But in fact, the American people in the majority have come to our view on this, and that's the problem of having a US congress that seems far more interested in serving a foreign country than serving Americans and America. Put this next one on. This is from Dave DeCamp at antiwar.com. Netanyahu hosts 20 APAC sponsored house Republicans in Israel. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he hosted a delegation of house Republicans who were in Israel on a trip organized by the pro Israel lobby group, APAC, as members of congress are flocking to the country amid their August recess.
Prime minister Netanyahu yesterday evening met with an APAC organized delegation of Republican members of congress. Netanyahu's office said the prime minister briefed the members of congress on the war in the Gaza Strip. I'm sure they got an objective briefing there. Right, doctor Paul? And commented on the issue of humanitarian assistance.
Oh, I'm sure they're doing everything to help. But, anyway, go to that next one. It's not just, oh, well, here, let's look at, APAC Tracker, which I highly recommend to follow on x, by the way. APAC Tracker, a group that tracks donations to US lawmakers from pro Israel lobby groups, identified 20 house GOP members from a picture posted online by Netanyahu's office. US house speaker Mike Johnson, also in Israel this week, visited illegal Jewish settlements in the Israeli occupied West Bank, including one where he dined with Netanyahu.
But don't worry, doctor Paul. It's not simply a Republican problem of abandoning our own country. According to Punch Bowl News, about 20 house Democrats are also headed to Israel during the recess on an APAC sponsored trip. The strong show of support for Israel from so many US lawmakers comes as Israel is regularly massacring over 100 Palestinians a day in Gaza. In put that back up, please.
Including many desperate people seeking aid, and Palestinians are starving in Gaza to death every day due to US backed Israeli blockade. Now here is that photo they, referred to, and I hope American voters will remember this photo when they go to vote, in the midterm elections. These are people who skipped out of the country to sit and pose for a photo op with a foreign leader in a foreign country. I think that's a kind of a disgraceful photo, doctor Paul. And I think that's Randy Fine sitting right behind Netanyahu.
He's a guy who said, let them starve. Talk to Palestinians. Okay. What do you think, doctor Paul?
Speaker 0: I think it's a bad deal. The the big picture I see is that the this this movement that the house did, it demonstrates the delivering of sovereignty to Israel from us. You know, they're making us the one statement I think was not not too friendly to America. First issue, and that that is, well, there's a problem over there. They're between Israel and with with Gaza and the Palestinians.
But, we don't wanna interfere, and I think that's up to Israel to make a decision on what to do. Yes. But the money keeps flowing and the support keeps flowing and the weapons keep flowing, And it's always it's a religious belief about you have to do it. People a lot of these individuals supporting it, they're they're deep into religious defense of what they're doing. They've been directed to do this, and that that depends on whose interpretation and what year they interpret that to happen.
So that that to me is so sad. There's a lot of wars been fought over sovereignty, and and and I think there's a certain aim of it and some of it is decent. You wanna be I always thought it would be great for us to have an influence by setting standards on the how to bring about peace and prosperity. But, no, this is very disturbing to me even though the the main main design here is designed to say that, what what we have to do is is punish those people who the Democrats who are leaving. They wanna hold up a vote.
I remember that happened in the nineteen seventies. That that was it. It didn't last, and it wasn't as vicious as here. They weren't they didn't fly to Israel to avoid the vote Yeah. Back in the seventies.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is, and you remember this well from the many seasons you were in the house, August is the time you go back to your home districts. You hold town halls. You meet with people. You get a sense of what your district is interested in, the kinds of legislation. You touch base with people that you're supposed to represent.
Well, this isn't the case. And let's put this next one up. Now this is, an old friend of ours, Medea Benjamin, who is an anti war activist, herself Jewish, by the way, as most people know, a progressive. She makes a heck of a good point. And this is a picture of a bunch of Republicans standing at the Western Wall, And she says, why aren't these Republican members of Congress at home in their districts taking care of their constituents instead of being in Israel?
America first or Israel first, says Medea Benjamin. And our old friend Thomas Massey, makes an also a very important point in that next clip if you put it up. He put this out a couple weeks ago. He said the speaker of the house recessed congress early Thursday for a month to avoid dealing with the Epstein issue. Mister speaker, the American people won't forget, my legislation isn't going away.
It'll be right there when we return, and I'll force the vote using a discharge petition, which is a special technique that is used to get something to the floor. Now, that's a good point that he's making. Yes. They they ended congress early because they didn't wanna deal with the Epstein issue, but they immediately got out of the country rather than doing their business. Now I have a clip of speaker Johnson, doctor Paul, who is also in Israel, as I mentioned earlier.
If you wanna grab your earpiece and and listen to what Johnson said here, over in Israel because it speaks to exactly what you just said a moment ago.
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson, the fifty sixth speaker of the house of representatives in America. We're here with a delegation of members of the house. We're so grateful to be in Israel, particularly on this day. Recognizing the destruction of the two temples and two types of history. But it is such a moving time for us to be here, to be here at the Wailing Wall.
We've offered our prayers. We put our notes into the wall as is traditional, and we're so moved by the hospitality of the people and the great love of Israel. Our prayer is that America will always stand with Israel and that we will we we pray for the preservation and the peace of Jerusalem. That's what scripture tells us to do. It's a matter of faith for us and a commitment that we have.
God bless you.
Speaker 1: That's what scripture tells us to do. I didn't think that we were a theocracy, doctor Paul. I thought
Speaker 0: we had a separation of church and state. Yes. He and, you know, as I hinted in my statement earlier and as he's he hinted strongly that there's a moral obligation to support Israel and as Christian obligation, which is a controversial position. Should be. And but but I do think there's a a moral principle here, but it's somewhat differ different.
What about the moral principle of stealing money from poor people in this country and sending it over into these war zones and having no control of who gets who gets killed and who gets starved to death? I think that, you know, you could ask him, don't you feel any moral obligation that you support taxation and allow that money to be sent to a country that's its principle is to starve children. Yeah. And and then they'll they'll well, I think even the Republicans here say, well, that's an exaggeration. That doesn't that doesn't really happen.
But you know what? The world opinion has changed. It's not easy to change the world opinion, both liberals and conservatives. And then and in in our country, is a split. And even in Israel, there's a split.
Yeah. You know, there's more Israelis, and now they're speaking out. Enough is enough. And, to see the starving children is just atrocious, and that is moral. So you can't hide behind this thing that no, in recent times, it's been, understood by many, Christians that you're obligated to do whatever whatever Israel wants.
And that that doesn't make any sense. We should we're starting on a moral we're not even morally obligated to do everything our government tells us because they tell us a lot of things that that we have to distrust and maybe our moral obligation is to point out these mistakes that they make and why liberty is a much better way to to make these decisions. And even in this situation, you could say, well, if you still don't wanna accept our arguments on this about taking money from poor people here that may maybe we you know, the fact is is I wouldn't support a law that said that if you have a strong feeling about this, yet to for you to go and participate, you can do it. But, that that, is not likely to be accepted.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The other thing and we mentioned that a couple weeks ago, Israel is one of the richest countries per capita on Earth. You know, they have free health care. They have free not that that's such a great thing, but free education, have you. Well, Americans are are suffering.
You know, back when the Holocaust happened in World War two and the Nazis were annihilating people, a lot of people did know it and they did nothing, which is horrible, but there wasn't the technology then that there is now. And as you say, a lot of people deny what's happening, but the pictures are everywhere. As you say, the entire world sees what's happening. The pictures are out there. They can deny them just like they tried to deny what Hitler was doing in the Holocaust, but you can't deny it.
And it's even harder to to deny it today. The other thing that's interesting, you know, he he, he says we are we, you know, we we must support Israel because of scripture. But the thing is he he even though say say that was true, but why does he get to define what support is? We might think, okay. That may be true, but we would support Israel by telling them to stop making enemies around the world by killing kids.
You know, that might be just as much justifiable as his what he says supporting Israel.
Speaker 0: The bible is very clear. Jesus is very clear in a position that you should have concern and help the people who are downtrodden and are hungry. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to pick up guns and steal money from one group, give it to another, and, follow the orders of one government body to attack the other one. And then but I still was annoyed the most by, oh, we're gonna stay out of this one. Israel Israel could take care of themselves.
We'll let them decide when they're going to take over completely Gaza. You know? That that to me is not, not very open minded.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can decide. But here, want some money? We'll give you some more money. Well, the as to why are they flocking?
Now they do it all the time. But why are they particularly flocking this time to Israel? That's because these members of congress are hearing an earful from their constituents. Americans are sick to death of what's happening over there, and it's reflected in the polls. Now we've we've showed this figure before, but let's look at this next poll.
This is a recent, Gallup poll from last month. Only 32% in The US back Israel's military action in Gaza, a new low. And I've again put that chart up if you can look at the next, the rest of it. This green one is Americans who approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. It's deep, deep, deep underwater, an all time low.
So what do members of congress do? Do they listen to their constituents who say, we gotta do something about this. We gotta stop supporting this with money and weapons. No. On the contrary, they ignore their constituents and go to that foreign country and say, we will do whatever it takes to to facilitate your continuing to do what is irritating our own constituents.
You know? It's incredible.
Speaker 0: You know, we criticize pure democracy, and democracy can can become the dictatorship of the majority. But I I think what what is happening now though is that you can watch this and you can find out what the majority is thinking. And I like to use the the phrase of prevailing opinion. And you just talked about a prevailing opinion. It shifted.
That had happened in COVID. That type of democracy, which is sort of voluntary and people speaking out and getting together. And for the most part, even under COVID, people were angry and upset, but they didn't start murdering people. But but, unfortunately, there were some people killed by bad policy. We know that.
Speaker 1: That's true. Well, the second topic we're gonna talk about a little bit today is a twist on corporatism. And if you put that next to them, this is from Politico. Amazon Web Services gives the Trump administration a $1,000,000,000 coupon. Now I like coupons, doctor Paul.
When I go to HEB and I see a coupon, I snatch it up and get something, but I have never had a $1,000,000,000 coupon.
Speaker 0: That sounds like influencing something somewhere. And to me, it it just emphasized the whole concept of corporatism because one of the theories that I work on my personal approach to this is they never get pure authoritarianism because it usually fails. But there's a lot of them. And that and the authoritarians who are who are the nihilists don't believe you have confined truth versus the people who say there's natural law. You don't even need government to to seek to seek the truth.
But the the the agreement of is interventionism. Governments can intervene. And but if it's intervention per se, you could go out and you can intervene slightly left, slightly right. They talk about that all the time. But all the intervention is not permissible, you know, by legislation.
So that invites all the special interest groups, and then they think they're doing something wonderful. Oh, that's what they're a bipartisan. Just love that. But every time a bipartisan gets together and they say, well, 90% of this bill is is pretty pretty good. But 10% is bad, but I can vote for 10%.
I tell them, well, what about if you do that constantly? If you vote against liberty 10% of the time, soon you don't have any liberty left. And I think I think that's what's happened over the last thirty, forty years.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, here's what it's all about. This wonderful coupon is not a bad one. Amazon Web Services giving the Trump administration a $1,000,000,000 coupon to use their services for the federal government's digital transformation and artificial intelligence capacity. On Thursday, the General Service Administration announced a sweeping OneGov agreement with Amazon Web Services that would yield up to a billion dollars in cost savings.
Isn't this funny, doctor Paul, how they're pretending that this is actually a free market? You know, they're doing business. Amazon is doing business, and they get a coupon as if this is a free market, you know, transaction.
Speaker 0: That's why the trickery and the distortions of of of what they're doing. I I think corporatism is a good one. I think, you know, the world has come together like that because when you look at what China's doing, China's not like they were when it was a 100% communist.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: They they know how to make profits, you know, sometimes better than we do, you know. So it's corporatism and, you you you know, getting together and saying we have to be bipartisan. You have to give up this. You get all sorts of things, but neither side develops and defends their principle. The people who know that freedom is beneficial, they they say, well, we have to give up on that to get what we need.
And, also, it leads to so many troubles in foreign policy. You know, this is okay, but these people are suffering and they make an excuse for avoiding, you know, non intervention. And that's that, of course, is a mess because I think not believing in the principle of, of liberty and freedom and markets and property, and and knowing that people can seek and understand what right and wrong is. They don't want you to do this. I think you point out some areas here where right and wrong, it's it's all over the place when they don't start with a basic principle.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, here's here's the other component. We talked about it before the show is that we basically are talking about corporatism, but with a political dimension. Now put this next clip up because this is what this is where we see the political dimension. We'll play ball with you.
We'll give you a billion dollar coupon. Here's what here's from the article. Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner and Doge staffer, Josh Greenbaum, who has played a leading role in negotiating the deal called it, quote, a foundational piece to help implement president Trump's AI action plan. Now it may not be political, but when you do it like this, doctor Paul, it doesn't
Speaker 0: look like the government's just buying a service. It looks like that service is providing political cover for the person in office. You know, it's, the system now depends on, you you you know, a type of leadership that we're we're seeing in the administration today. But a lot of this is is is personal, you know, warnings and telling them and be badgering people. And you can promise and then you make promises like we hear here now.
This is another promise. Another, actually give rewards to it. And then we'll and deal with the power of this every day. There's a new change in in, in tariffs. We'll give you this before.
Take this. I think tariffs rarely do much good. I see they do good on for some industries for short periods of time. But this this whole thing that they do this, they they really have expanded the use and manipulation of the power of promising and giving and taking. And just just think of how it's messed up the concept of the First Amendment.
You get the universities dependent on government money, stealing money from one group, and then all of a sudden, the colleges have to give up some of their freedom to have speakers that don't satisfy the administration. They say, oh, we're your money away. Well, it'd be best if they just don't take the money ever, and we don't volunteer to give them the money. That should all be private.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Well, I'm gonna close out doctor Paul with a clip that a friend of mine, Simon, who's a producer over at Redacted, he sent this pretty neat clip over to me yesterday, and I put it up. And I think it would be fun because this is from the redacted, and that gentleman on the right is our board member and good friend, judge Napolitano. Let's listen into this. This is pretty neat.
Speaker 3: Natalie and I are gonna be together next week without you. Did you know that?
Speaker 4: Apparently, I I heard about this. You'll be at, the Ron Paul Institute giving us speech together. Is that right?
Speaker 3: 500 people there. We're actually doing a judging freedom from there on the dais with the regulars who will be accompanying Natalie as a speaker, but I'm staying until the end because I wanna hear what Natalie has to say.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you so much. Now, just to be clear, Clayton was invited too, and we decided we would flip flop. So Clayton will go to the next one because we still have three kids.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Someone's gotta someone's gotta hold down the fort as it as it were. These
Speaker 5: are great
Speaker 3: gatherings of, serious, small government, maximum individual liberty, pro peace people as you'd expect at a Ron Paul gathering.
Speaker 4: Well, I can't wait to hear about it. I can't wait to watch it and listen in as well.
Speaker 1: Isn't that neat?
Speaker 0: That's How far did that where did that get to? Where did that spread? Where was where where has that been?
Speaker 1: Well, was on their program. They had the judge on their program, and Simon just did a little clip of
Speaker 0: that reached a few people.
Speaker 1: Oh, it reached a few people.
Speaker 0: Is if we'll have enough chairs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. There's a huge buzz around it, and everyone's talking about it. So I do have a link there in the description. It's getting close, but there's still some tickets left.
So snatch those up. So when the judge and Natalie gets there, it's gonna be standing room only. So we hope to see you there. Over to you, doctor Paul.
Speaker 0: Very, very good. And I too am excited about what's going on. I sometimes just get a little discouraged, but not much because all I have to do is come back and do a program, and we meet and talk to, especially these conferences. It's a it's a real boost to us who, you know, work at this for a long time, and we don't know if there was anybody out there listening. And, with it's certainly very nice to to hear three people talk about our program because we are not alone.
I mean, I didn't invent the stuff I talk about. You didn't invent it. It's been around for a long time. The monetary policy goes all the way back to Aristotle. Aristotle knew a lot more than most people in Washington, you know, about, good monetary policy.
So I think that that is so exciting to have this, and, and I have so much confidence that we can solve our problems and produce peace and prosperity if we accept basic principles of non intervention and nonviolence because that is the way that, people get along much better. Our constitution suggested a few ways we could do this, and for a while, we did a fairly good job on that. It's never gonna be perfect, and the authoritarians can't be perfect. We can't be perfect, but we do know when we're going in one direction or another. Right now, we've lived through several decades where the apparent amount of liberty we have has been shrinking, and there's no reason that we can't expect that direction to change.
Wanna thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report. Please come back soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's claims regarding a potential conspiracy involving Barack Obama and intelligence officials to create a false narrative about Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. I believe this could be a significant issue, possibly a "Crime of the Century," aimed at undermining the democratic choice of the American people. Additionally, I raised the question of whether we will actually proceed with auditing the Federal Reserve, referencing insights from Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard blew the whistle on what could well be the "Crime of the Century" - the collusion between outgoing President Barack Obama and his top intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper and others to manufacture a false story about Donald Trump's "collusion" with the Russians to win the 2016 election. The goal was nothing less than a coup against the American people and their choice for president in 2016. Also today - are we really going to audit the Fed? Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the troubling state of the country's financial markets and international spending, advocating for an audit of all money leaving the country. They express concern over the monetary system, the potential destruction of the dollar, and the size and scope of government.
The conversation shifts to the Federal Reserve, with one speaker referencing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's questioning of the Fed's success and the need for a review. A senator is quoted calling for an audit of the Fed, while another advocates for ending the institution altogether.
The main topic revolves around declassified documents revealing an alleged coup attempt against President Trump after the 2016 election. It's claimed that the intelligence community initially assessed Russia was not substantially interfering in the election but later manufactured and politicized intelligence to suggest otherwise. The speakers discuss the implications of this alleged falsification, including the potential for nuclear war with Russia and the sabotage of diplomacy. They also touch on the infiltration of leftist ideology into various institutions and the importance of addressing corruption.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you today.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Paul. How are you this morning? Very good.
Speaker 0: Alright. How is the situation out there in our country, in our financial markets, in our pocketbook? How are we doing? Well, we're gonna talk a little bit about that. And, you know, we have to pay attention to what's doing going internationally too because, we're spending a lot of money over there.
I think we ought to audit all that. Every penny that leaves the country has to be audited and itemized and permitted by a vote of congress before they send it. Big deal because even the people in Washington don't have the vaguest idea how much really goes and where it's being spent. But I think the markets are still signaling big trouble ahead, especially this morning. You know, although I have anticipated for many years that, the monetary system is, not, well run, and it's gonna lead to chaos, and and it's gonna be a big deal.
It could be destruction of the dollar. And you can, you know, talk about a lot of things. I haven't haven't tried to scare people, but I tried to warn people and tell them, well, it's all have to do with the ideas and the monetary policy that we have. But this morning, even though it shouldn't surprise me, but I was still a little bit shocked. It it gets to my attention.
You know, silver is essentially at $40 an ounce, and, that that used to be a dollar 29. So there's something going on there. Somebody's printing a lot of money. And also gold, $33,400, same thing. When the Brent when the Brentwoods broke down and, and we, went bankrupt, we did not, honor our commitment for to the dollar with, gold at $35 a night.
It's at $3,400. So I think that even though we can't expect more, we shouldn't be totally surprised. It still is disturbing. You know? Why don't they wake up?
When are they gonna wake up? Are they going to wake up and say, maybe it's really it's a it's a it related to the size and scope of government. And, of course, that's my theme is that government is too big. They spend too much money. It's too much in secrecy.
I wrote a, you know, a little pamphlet a few months ago, and I talked about a a coup. I believe there's been a coup, but I dated the coup from 11/22/1963 Uh-huh. Because I thought that was a big event, and I remember it so clearly at because at that time, was in the air force. But it it is the the point I was making was all the assassinations in the sixties with Kennedy Kennedy and then Martin Luther King and all these things that are going on. But there are people now talking about, you know, matter of fact, the modern day, maybe if somebody recently might have been doing the same thing, trying to take over the government.
But my I'm thinking more long term because in a way, I I think in terms of the republic. Is there a real good healthy republic in this country right now? I would say no. It's, people don't even talk about that. They want they want democracy democracy, and now we have to make sure we have enough votes to beat the socialist and on and on.
So this is a this is a time when I think that people should be waking up. I think they are, but I think that one of our jobs, Daniel, is to try to present the ideas that would have prevented and supported the the principles that the founders gave to us because historically, turns out that the events of our revolution and our constitution, very, very valuable. But I don't know if people were gonna estimate, well, what percent of that constitution do you think we really adhere to in a strict manner? And, I would have imagined there's some people wouldn't be very optimistic over our conditions today.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, doctor Paul, you've been, lately been interested in talking about the markets as we open the show, and I think a lot of people like to hear that. Well, there's something related to sort of what you like to talk about in the intro, which I thought we would bring up before we get to our main topic, and that is the issue of the Fed. Now all of a sudden, the Fed is in the news. And put up that first clip if you can. Let's just get that up for a second.
Speaker 0: And so Scott Bessent, the
Speaker 1: the Scott Bessent was on treasury secretary Scott Bessent was on an interview where he started questioning some things about the Fed. He said, what do all those PhDs do? And here's actually a clip. Let's play that first of of audio clip. This is a little longer than we usually play, but it's worth listening to what Besson is talking about the need for a format to fit.
You might wanna put that earpiece in, doctor Paul, and hear what, secretary Besson has to say.
Speaker 2: Would you just offer up what your opinion would be on firing Jay Powell if the president were to do that? Do you think that would be a good idea, would you dissuade him from that?
Speaker 3: Look, Joe, I I think that what we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful. I I'm speaking actually, I'm I'm gonna be in the building this evening. There is a regulatory conference that begins tomorrow. I'm the keynote speaker tonight talking about regulation. The Fed as well deals with monetary policy, regulations, financial stability.
And again, I think that we should think has the organization succeeded in its mission? You know, if this were the FAA and we were having this many mistakes, we would go back and look at why why has this happened?
Speaker 1: Interesting comment. Why haven't they succeeded in their mission?
Speaker 0: You know, in a way, though, he was describing, you know, we need to check this out to find out if they're unsuccessful or why not. And I keep thinking, the evidence is out there. It's been out there, and there's been good people. Even when the Fed was established in 1913, there were people that understood exactly what we were starting out with. It when they knew it before Bretton Woods broke down, and they they knew it, you know, on all these regulations.
Now they're gonna have an investigation. I'm all for that because I want an audit. I want a lot of things, and the investigation should be there. So in some ways, I wanna say, well, this is optimistic. At least he's saying some of the words, but, sometimes, they twist they twist words around and enthusiasm.
But, maybe we can be a little more hopeful with this administration. But I have a few things that bother me about, you know, how things are being handled because they're they're talking about independence, and, the Fed always wants independence. And now there's a big fight between Trump and Powell. Yeah. And, they still they they're not arguing that we shouldn't have, you know, any independence.
But I don't think either one of them wants a true, true independence and the thing that everything is open. What they want, I I substitute a word that helps me to understand all of this. And it is independence is equivalent to them demanding total secrecy. Yeah. And it and that and that rules and I don't I think there's an argument about what the rates should be.
I don't think they're arguing who should be in charge. Unfortunately, I think the Trump administration will always believe in independence as long as all they're asking, who's gonna be the independent leader Yeah. To tell us what we're supposed to do?
Speaker 1: Well, I I this probably won't shock you, doctor Paul, but your sentiments are reflected in a senator from Kentucky put on that next clip because he had basically the same reaction to Besson's points. He re he reposted it on X, and he said, audit the Fed. And then he also said, thank you, secretary Scott Besson. So he's he's appreciating the fact that Bessent says we need to take a look at the Fed and see if it's working right, and he's encouraging an audit. Now go to that next clip.
Now this is a write up on Zero Hedge about this whole sort of incident. And, you talked about this just before the show, doctor Powell, how shocked you were. He said, Bessent went on to muse over quote, all those PhDs over there. I don't know what they do. This is like universal basic income for academic economists.
And you mentioned that you were surprised when you found out how many people they have on the payroll.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and you think, how many people do you know? So the sum of that or 300 of them. Well, why would you need that many? Because none of them are saying the right things.
They're all saying the wrong things. They were they're arguing about how to manage it, they come along and say, well, we need somebody with more vision and all. And the one statement rather than reflexively regulating anything that hits the headline, We need to instead to explicit do it in advance. And and my thoughts are all they're talking about is more financial regulations right away. We're gonna we have to be smarter about anticipating, which they don't know.
They they don't know where people are gonna spend their money, and they don't know what's going to happen. The market is the best decider of that. But but, anyway, I I wanna give credit to when they're hitting Yeah. That they would like us to do it. And in words, I think I think even Trump, has not said, oh, no.
We're never going to audit the Fed. You know? Yeah. So and he's given some so so support for that. So I think that, yeah, we had to do that, but I think the people need to be warned that sometime political promises don't are not use not usually
Speaker 1: Yeah. Fulfilled. Yeah. Reform is a four letter word in many cases. Cases, right?
Remember John McManus of the John Birch Society once said, You can't reform cancer. You know, sometimes you just gotta get rid of it. Go back to that one again because I wanna just read this out, Doctor. Wald. This is a teaser from the Zero Hedge article.
This is not a quote from Besant, unfortunately, but it is rather a a a savory little morsel. So Zero Hedge writes, Bessent's criticism of the Fed's ability to fulfill its basic mission of providing stability to financial markets, regulating the banking system, and conducting monetary policy might suggest that Trump could bypass questions of whether he has the legal authority to fire Powell and, quote, do an Andrew Jackson by abolishing abolishing the central bank altogether. Now that would be rather interesting move if he did an Andrew Jackson. He does have a picture of Jackson up in the Oval Office.
Speaker 0: So Yeah. But but, you know, it it seems like, when they're talking about the legality of firing somebody and how do you get rid of people, it seems like they could figure that out on what they can do. I mean, they can fire generals and everybody else. Why can't why is the greater sale of ever getting rid of somebody that the market or the the big guys at the market want want to keep in place. They don't, they they don't ever expect people to, you know, come along and say, okay.
We're gonna keep him forever. Why don't they talk about filing a suit and say, you know, this whole thing is totally illegal. There's no authority for for a central bank. They fought it out for years. From the beginning of our constitution, They fought it out for the for the first two banks.
They got rid of them.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And but 1913 was an unlucky year because because bad things happened then.
Speaker 1: Well, here's a couple more to to sort of finish out this topic because senator Paul from his official, senate, account on X posted this. You like this picture, doctor Paul? It's kinda neat. It shows, senator Paul and former congressman Ron Paul. And senator Paul said, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, formerly famously known as Audit the Fed, isn't just legislation.
It's part of a movement my father Ron Paul started to bring sunlight to the most secretive institution in Washington. Grateful to Scott Bessent for carrying the torch and pushing for real accountability, time to audit the Fed the fight to audit the Fed lives on. Apologies for my misreading of that. Nice little statement. And then he finishes though with an important point of clarification in this next post, if we can put that up.
Now he posted this, just this morning. Treasury secretary Besson is finally calling for a full review of the Fed. It's about time. And I highlight this part, doctor Paul, but let's be clear. A review won't fix a corrupt, unaccountable institution.
It's time to end the Fed. So he got a little bit more steely, a little bit more firm in his reaction. He was, I think probably like you, happy that it's up for discussion, but he does wanna make the point, but look, the problem is the institution. It's not who runs it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He wasn't mincing words either.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That was pretty tough.
Speaker 0: So I I thought it was a great statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Very interesting. Whenever the Fed gets talked about, it's good because people don't realize the the terrible things they do.
Speaker 0: But but don't you think, there's more attention to the Fed now than it was, when you were in college?
Speaker 1: Well, remember when we were visiting with Tucker Carlson, and he said, in your first campaign, he thought it was kinda kooky. This guy keeps bringing up the Federal Reserve. Yeah. And then he actually looked into it and realized that it really is
Speaker 0: a special show. First first interview I had in 1974, and all I wanted to I I now so I was a candidate, so I was on the talk show host. And, and the subject came up, but everybody was, what are you guys talking about? But we had a caller in, and he was a union guy, probably working at Dow Chemical Plant, and he wanna he was he was the one that called in to support me. And a golfers, you know, was a per gold guy.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So it and and it is true that if you've had a full understanding of monetary policy, the working people should be. And there's a I'm sure there's a lot of working people for it. Oh, yeah. But, you you you know, for for a sound money.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And they should. But it's too often that it always comes up. Well, the prices are too high because there's gouging and different things, and then they end up wanting to do something more. Well, if we're if the prices are too high, what we need is more money.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think that's going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Well, the kind of the main thing we wanted to cover today is not easy to cover, and we both have sort of been wrestling with this for the past few days. Because on the one hand, it's a blockbuster release. We're actually seeing the documents.
We're actually seeing declassified documents demonstrating that a coup took place or an attempted coup took place, after the twenty sixteen elections. Not the fake January sixth insurrection, but an actual coup took place. Now we always we spent years on this show talking about how phony Russiagate was, But the fact that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, came out and literally declassified those and said, look, this is what happened. But the problem is sometimes you can miss the forest for the trees. I'm going to make an attempt, probably not a good idea on my part, but to summarize it in a sentence or two, which is that for the period leading up to the twenty sixteen elections, the entirety of The US intelligence community, from the CIA to the FBI to the NSA, DIA, and all down, they all assessed that Russia was not substantially interfering in the elections, either through electronic means or any other means.
They simply weren't involved in it. That was the run up to the sixteen elections, whereas we remember Hillary Clinton had a 99.9% chance winning according to the New York Times and all the mainstream media. Well, something happened that shocked the establishment, is that Donald Trump won the twenty sixteen election. And so what happened is that entirety of intelligence community assessment that they weren't was turned on its ear after the election produced a candidate that the deep state, whoever you wanna call it, Obama didn't like, and they turned it upside down. And then they said it was interference.
Now this is what Tulsi released, doctor Paul, and I just I I clipped as little as I possibly could to try to get the flavor of what she presented on Friday. If you go to that first one, this is her official letterhead. Key evidence new evidence of Obama administration conspiracy to subvert president Trump's 2016 victory and presidency. Now go to that next one. Here's her opening, of the press release on Friday.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed overwhelming evidence that demonstrates how after president Trump won the twenty sixteen election against Hillary Clinton, president Obama and his national security cabinet members, and I highlight this, manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the ground for groundwork for what was essentially a years long coup against president Trump. And go to the next one. Here's the setup, and this is a longer version of what I just said, doctor Paul. In the months leading up to the twenty six twenty sixteen election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia is, quote, probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means. Now we get to the 12/07/2016, after no.
Of twenty seventeen twenty sixteen after the election. Sorry. After the election, the talking points were prepared for director of national intelligence clapper stating, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter The US President's Election outcome. And then on December 9 okay. So that was a six.
Sorry. This is getting in into the woods more than I wanted to. But on the ninth, Obama brought together his National Security Council top team members, Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe from the FBI, and others to discuss Russia. Now this is important, doctor Paul, and I'm sorry again. After the meeting, DNI Clappers executive assistant sent an email to the intelligence community leaders tasking them with creating a new intelligence community assessment, quote, per the president's request, I e, Obama, that details, quote, the tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the twenty sixteen elections.
It went on to say, the offices of of National Intelligence will treat this effort with participation from FBI, CIA, NSA, and DHS. And then, she also points out that Obama officials after that leaked false statements to the media claiming that Russia has attempted to interfere in the election. And that remember this, doctor Paul, that 01/06/2017 intelligence community assessment was released that directly contradicted the intelligence community assessments that were made throughout the previous six months. So it's a long way of saying when they found out that Trump won, they said, oh, no. All the time we're saying the Russians weren't interfering.
Let's just switch it on his ear and say they were interfering.
Speaker 0: You know, this is all very, very important, and it'll wake up a few people. But when I put it in the big picture, you know, I I see things a little bit differently because let's let's assume, and this is an assumption, a wild assumption, that there was a world court, and it was respectable, and they always would come up with the right answer. So what if this job of honest elections was turned over to this court? Do you think do you think The United States would get off scot free? I mean, how many times are we involved in this stuff?
You know? And and even in our own elections now, you know, we've used we used the coup in, you know, Ukraine most recently, and we're always involved involved in Syria, all these places. And that that I think is is something that that it's the interference. It's it's interference that we shouldn't be doing. But I think the more that people know about this so this is key information to realize that they would do it, and they they were doing it at home at home.
This is especially beneficial because at least we're trying to clean up our own house or at least some people there that would like to. And and I I think I I think it's very good. But when you take the principle of manipulating elections, I guess I I guess I guess you could write a book about how many there have been, our involvement. That's why I find the answer to so many of these problems of what the CIA is doing and all the corruption is who who you know, we always ask, who who decided we had to have a central bank? Well, who decided we had to have a a CIA?
And, well, we've always had, know, security and, yet the CIA and all expanded tremendously as our empire expanded, you know, after World War two.
Speaker 1: You make a great point there that's so important because you're talking about all the times The US manipulated elections overseas, hundreds of times. You know? And I I if I can go back to my past as an election observer, I watched several of these color revolutions take place on the ground when I was physically there. And the group that I was with at the time, we kept saying to ourselves, you know, today The US can be doing this overseas. Someday it's going to come to our shores.
And that's exactly what happened with Obama. All of the overthrows, all of the Arab Springs, all the color revolutions that they were doing overseas, Obama must have sat down and said, why don't we just do that here? This will be easy. This is a no brainer. And so he said, okay.
All the intel that said the Russians weren't involved from now on, they were involved. And where did the info that they that they got what was the info that they got to change their minds? The Steele dossier, which we knew was completely fake. That's what they claimed that they used. So it is important that we did it overseas and that these guys thought that they could do it here now as well.
Speaker 0: You know, to have to have a coup work, you have to have the people stationed in the right places. In our country, we've had a, you know, far left operation going on for a hundred years and infiltrating our educational system, our medical system, the whole whole works. And they they they they're in in charge, but and and money is very important. But under these these cases, sometimes money does the trick, but they eventually in our case, it's the it's the that has lasted longer. They're how did they get all these people in the right?
There's Yeah. I understand they're still there out there. How could they wipe them out when more than half of them well, the major part just like alright. Why don't we go and weed out the bad at economists at the Fed? What what do you think that would solve the problem?
Yeah. I think that'd be worthless other than emphasize. Well, they're all they're all people who are against free enterprise, free markets. It's how I'm gonna say, you know, guess, the constitution. But, no.
They they now the infiltration in this country, that's why I worry more about that because, you know, how do you how do you, make sure you only have good teachers in a government school? Well, there are good teachers, and you have to try to do that. But, ultimately, we should have government schools. Yeah. You know, especially the federal government schools.
There was never any authority for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The the the the thing about the Russiagate, you remember those four years of sixteen to twenty. Now Trump did plenty boneheaded things on his own. But, nevertheless, the this cloud hanging over the presidency that he was somehow put into office by Putin, As absurd as it was to some of us, a great portion of that country literally believed it. And so the implications of this falsification of the deep state, of what they did this is a deep state coup.
This is a deep state saying, we cannot let Trump have this presidency. We have to do something to block it. And that's exactly what it was. Well, they what are the implications were for The United States? And this is why it's important.
Well, we moved very close to nuclear war with Russia. Because think about it. The idea that Vladimir Putin was somehow able to put his agent in the seat in the Oval Office, that is an act of war by Russia against The United States. I don't think anyone would disagree if that really happened. So that moved us very close to war, and it was based on a lie.
So they were willing. These people, Obama and Brennan and and and Comey and Clapper, they were willing to take us to the very brink of nuclear war based on a lie because they didn't wanna give up power.
Speaker 0: You know, fortunately, you know, the the final end turns out to be relatively beneficial to us. But it again, it points out that some of the attacks by the opposition to to Trump backfired on him. You know, going back to the, you you know, the impeachments and different things like that. He did so many thing, but this one was supposed to be secreted. Obviously, nobody would ever catch us on doing this.
How could this guy ever win the presidency? Yeah. With and I I guess we have to give a a couple pluses to the people who were waking up at the time and decided that, this is not going well.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you who who I wouldn't wanna be right now is John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director. Because as DNI, he was in Tulsi's position those first years, that first term in president Trump. Why didn't he look for these documents and find them? Maybe he's part of the deep state as well. You know?
That makes you wonder about that. But there were so many victims, including remember general Mike Flynn in the early days of the presidency. They wanted to disorient. They wanted to sow chaos. I mean, clapper in Obama and his gang.
They wanted to sow chaos, and so they got rid of Flynn, on fake charges because there was no rush of collusion. And actually Flynn, if we put that next one up, Flynn did comment on this, and he if anyone deserves a comment, he deserves a comment about this and he does a pretty good job. I probably messed up Flynn's post. There we go. Thank you.
So Flynn said with regards to the release by Tulsi Gabbard, this is surreal. Here in America, the director of national intelligence is now stating emphatically that a former president of The United States, Barack Obama, attempted a coup against Donald Trump. That is why Gabbard was attacked so relentlessly over the past few weeks and months. They knew if there were anyone with the guts to investigate the attempted coup, it would be her. Well done and more to come.
Checkmate. Very, very important. And I think it would be safe to say that the Ukraine war would not have happened, if they had not done this coup, if Obama and, and and Brennan and the rest, because they poisoned the well with regard to Russia. We could not have good relations with Russia. They pushed Russia away.
They pushed Russia into a corner, all based on these lies that Russia somehow interfered in the election. Now someone who is not unbiased, we should accept that, and that's Donald Trump junior. He put out a post. You might wanna grab your earpiece if you can. He pointed out and now this is a long one, but it's worth watching because one of the things that Tulsi said or Tulsi Gabbard said is that they planted fake stories in the press.
Now let's remember what the media did to Donald Trump when he was president over Russia. If we can play that, Trump junior one, it's long, but I think it makes such an important point.
Speaker 4: It's also a media scandal. For literally years and years, the media spewed nonsense about collusion, lies about the Steele dossier, and endless testimony hearings. And which hunts? Well, here's a quick trip down memory lane. Check this one out.
I'm sure you'll remember these fine.
Speaker 5: Understand just how much trouble the president is in. To believe that the president isn't compromised requires such a leap of faith. I think we have all the proof we need of a scandal that's arguably worse than Watergate. The US president possibly working for the Russians, possibly an unwitting pawn. Here's what the president said when asked if he was a secret Russian agent.
Speaker 3: The president did not directly answer the question. Why not just say no
Speaker 5: if that's the answer? There is tons of proof of potential collusion. We have dramatic evidence of collusion.
Speaker 3: How how is it not collusion? How is all of that not collusion?
Speaker 5: A political hurricane is out there at sea for him. We'll call it hurricane Vladimir, you will.
Speaker 0: Donald Trump knows the noose is tightening. The noose is tightening.
Speaker 4: The the noose is tightening, if you will.
Speaker 5: The noose is tightening around the president. The noose is tightening. And I think they're shocked that the noose is tightening.
Speaker 1: They
Speaker 5: And that people might go to jail. He knows he and POTUS are going to prison. Well, I think they're all gonna end up together in prison, and maybe that's a big god.
Speaker 2: The walls appear to be closing in on the president. The investigative walls are closing in. He feels the walls closing in.
Speaker 5: The walls are closing in. Trump resigns, quote, once Mueller closes in on him and the fam
Speaker 4: It's also a media scandal. The media also said the exact same
Speaker 1: thing, but that was a good news.
Speaker 4: Nonsense about collusion
Speaker 1: Yeah. Reading their
Speaker 4: lies about steel.
Speaker 1: So they are part of the deep state. That's for sure.
Speaker 0: You know, they they every once in a while, they wanna protect themselves. They use the word possibly this could do later on in the program. They were just flat out saying, yeah. Yeah. You know, they knew.
But it's just possible, Daniel, that everything we heard in there was all based on a motivation to lie Yeah. And support the support for this illegal taking over the government.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The coup. Support Brennan and and coup master. No. Right.
Obama is very, very unlikely that he will be indicted simply because he has protected status because of what he was he was doing while in office. But that doesn't hold for people like Brennan and Clapper, and, and all of the others who were colluding with him to subvert a, to subvert an election. And, yeah, you can say this is taking the attention of Epstein. That may well be the case. That may be the intent.
So be it. But still, this is a huge thing. You know, this is something that if it's not punished, it will continue to go on. And the other thing is the, the poisoned relations with Russia that we had during Trump's years. Because if Trump ever said anything nice about Russia, of course, it would be because he's an agent.
We can't let him say anything nice. So that mean he had to be extra mean. He had to do things like send javelins to Ukraine to show that he wasn't Putin's puppet. All of these horrible things. Now there's a million Ukrainians dead because of this, and however many thousand Russian soldiers dead, the country's destroyed, all because they put Trump in a box as Putin's agent, and he couldn't do anything constructive.
Now I did pull up a post doctor Paul from Kirill Dimitriov. He is the president of the Russian State Investment Fund, and he makes a very good point. He said, I had 13 pages in the Mueller report. No wrongdoing found. I worked to build US Russia dialogue.
I'll consider testifying in Obama era trials over the Russia hoax. It wasn't just an attack on Trump and Russia. It sabotaged diplomacy, the GOP, and set the stage for the Ukraine war. And I think that's a very accurate point.
Speaker 0: Right. You know, I started the program talking about events in general terms and affecting the marketplace. And I think we've sort of followed up on this. That this is enough to make people a little bit concerned, you know, whether they're on the take, whether they endorse welfare or whatever, or even the people who do who are cheating. Yeah.
You know, might say, well, maybe maybe this is unstable, and and and there's every other reason. It's just economic reasons, bad economic and monetary policy, bad foreign policy that would cause people to realize that the economic stability is going to be affected. So when they read this domestic stuff going on but it it in some way, for some of us, they could there's some positive biz. Yeah. Some something positive is gonna come out of here.
Let's hope so.
Speaker 3: Let's hope so.
Speaker 0: But, I do wanna express my appreciation for all the people who have tuned in to the Liberty Report. Please come back soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
Just hours before a major Ukrainian operation against Russian bombers, Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal were in Kiev pushing Ukraine to continue fighting. I question why a US Senator is contradicting official US policy to end the war and how involved he is in the recent attacks.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Just hours before a massive Ukrainian operation targeting Russian strategic bombers deep inside Russia, Senator Lindsey Graham and his colleague Sen. Richard Blumenthal were in Kiev again urging Ukraine to keep fighting. As President Trump has repeatedly stated that his policy is to end that war, why is a US Senator undermining official US foreign policy...and how involved was he (and other neocons in the Administration) in the Sunday attacks? Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss Ukraine's attack on Russian military facilities deep inside Siberia, targeting strategic bombers. The attack is considered a PR and psychological victory for Ukraine, revealing perceived weaknesses in Russia. They speculate about the US involvement in the attack, referencing Larry Johnson's analysis suggesting potential CIA and EUCOM support.
Senator Lindsey Graham's visit to Kiev two days before the attack is questioned, suggesting he might be undermining President Trump's policy to end the war in Ukraine. Graham's previous statements promising Ukraine a war against Russia are highlighted.
The speakers then briefly discuss Iran rejecting a US offer regarding its nuclear program. Trump's stance on a revised nuclear accord with Iran is criticized. They emphasize the importance of waking people up to the propaganda and justifications for war.
The conversation shifts to the financial aspects of war, arguing that the current monetary system enables endless debt and conflict. They advocate for honest money and adherence to the Constitution to promote peace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Speaker 1: Happy Monday, Doctor. Pole.
Speaker 0: How are you today? Doing fine. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good. Good.
Speaker 0: The gold market is doing fine for the people who own gold. Uh-huh. The people who are worried about the conditions of the world, it's not so fine because gold's indicating there's some excitement someplace in the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And if you only looked at the gold price, you'd have to look for what brought this up. Well, there's a little bit of activity in Russia, and that is in Russia, not on our Russian border, not in Ukraine, but in Russia and, significantly so. Now Ukraine has, pulled off one, and that's a big deal because it could mean a lot of trouble even though militarily, they haven't taken over a lot of land and they didn't invade with an army. But, you know, philosophically and propaganda wise, this is a big deal. And, it's it's not going to show military strength as it will.
I would worry more about the stimulation of what the Russians might do to not look weak. They're gonna look weak now, but the Ukrainians look stronger than I think they really are. But, anyway, it it got the attention of the markets in gold. Gold went up, close to $90. And, of course, the first reaction is is what will the Russians do and how how how much will this accelerate, the and come and make the war more complex.
And it it could do a lot more. It depends on what Russia does. Maybe they have something else to say about But, the claim was they destroyed some airplanes, and, it was one of these things where, they had to had to pull it off. And I just wonder I I don't believe things like this. This this might be about paranoia or something or my instincts.
I don't think things like this happen, especially since we invested $200,000,000,000 in Ukraine that we didn't give them a little help or a little encouragement, but we don't know exactly who paid the bills for the for for the missiles that they shot. But, anyway, it is a big deal, and economically, it's a big deal, and politically, it is. And what happens here in the next few days might make a big difference. It may accelerate quickly, or it may just disappear this week, and people just just go on to the next fight.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Doctor Paul, it was a spectacular attack that took place on Sunday morning, and spectacular because for the first time ever, Russian military facilities were attacked deep inside Siberia. Now there's been a lot of cross border attacks. There's been a lot of attempts to send drones into, into Moscow, but this was a successful attack deep, deep inside Russia, and it targeted Russia's strategic bombers. Like the equivalent of r b 50 twos, I suppose.
And it was a spectacular attack. There's no questioning it, and it was a brave and bold and very un unpredictable military operation. And what happened apparently is that there was a warehouse or a house inside Russia that was they were collecting these drones, and they were they kept them there. And they developed these trucks with this a fake compartment on top, false roof. So if you look inside, this looks like a regular truck.
But between that false roof and the real roof were all of these drones. And they went to five different military bases inside Russia. They looked like regular old cargo trucks. They were they managed to attack only two of the five, but nevertheless, when they arrived there right outside the bases, the the artificial top came off and the drones shot up into the air and they went and attacked the Tupolovs, the strategic bombers. And they successful now Ukraine, of course, being Ukraine, which I guess is natural in war, claimed that they destroyed 41 of the of the strategic bombers, which is not true.
But they did manage to destroy at least two and damage at least two more. So it won't it won't put the Russian air force on its back legs for a number of reasons. First of all, missiles have really taken predominance over air delivered weaponry, what have you. Nevertheless, it was an incredible PR victory for Ukraine, and it was a psychological victory because what it did show is all of the stereotypes about Russia being not as strong as they seem, not as, adept as they seem to be, and all of these things. And, of course, the the backdrop to this entire thing was today's second round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that took place in Istanbul.
So Ukraine decided to go out with a bang on the eve of these negotiations. And I think the question might be, well, what were they hoping to achieve? Victory? No. As you said in your opening, but I suspect they wanted to do something that would so enrage the Russians that the Russians would refuse to show up in Istanbul and that would give them another PR victory.
Look, the Russians don't want peace. We showed up talking about peace.
Speaker 2: We hit legitimate military targets, which is true.
Speaker 1: And they're having they're throw you know, they're throwing a fit and they won't show up. They obviously don't want peace. The Russians did show up, so they didn't get that part of it. But, nevertheless, this is certainly dominating the news side.
Speaker 0: Right. And it it certainly shows that Zelenskyy has bragging rights at least for a day or two or three.
Speaker 1: No question.
Speaker 0: But the reaction that Russia might, you know, get involved in is is the big deal. And I I don't think they'll go I don't think they're gonna forget the incident. I mean, they will retaliate someplace, but we don't know as what will happen there. But it's just another thing that, it annoys me to know in is is why are we involved in this war? And and it's not getting less.
The only thing the only question comes up once in a while is maybe we don't have enough money. But oh well we have we have a new age that we're living in is to cut back spending reduce the deficit so we get a new president but the deficit hasn't gone down it's as big as ever They've they've tried to cut a lot, and not a lot of the cuts aren't working very well. But they don't even try to cut the military debt, you know, and and and and industrial complex on on and on. So regardless of Zelensky's bragging rights, I don't think Zelensky would be in the condition he is now if we weren't, as NATO operating as a NATO ally and, bringing about a coup that put eventually put him into power, he he would be a nothing.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And it would be and if and if NATO had obeyed the consensus of what they should have on the agreements when the Cold War ended, that would have ended it. But but, this this to me is more aggravation. It could increase the retaliation. It doesn't, I don't think it's gonna make sure, oh, we know that Zelensky can do this, and the the Russians are gonna hurry up and sign a peace treaty with him. I no.
No. No. I don't think that's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Well, kind of the funny thing is that Ukrainians as well as some in the media have referred to this as Russia's Pearl Harbor. Now you could say it was a sneak attack and it was it successfully destroyed some things, but I think you kinda need to open a history book and figure out a couple things. First of all, how it ended. It didn't end well for Japan after they committed this Pearl Harbor. And the second of all, because we know that FDR knew about it in advance, I seriously doubt Putin knew about it in advance.
But you just got done saying, why are we still involved? And that's a great question. But I think another question to ask is, how much was The US involved in this attack? And I'm gonna go to a couple of clips here because, you can skip that first one because we've kind of introduced that one. Go to the second one, while this is clearly a PR victory.
Now this is our old friend, Larry Johnson, doctor Paul, writing on sonar 21. For our viewers not familiar, Larry Johnson is a former CIA counterintelligence expert who writes extensively on geopolitics and has been our guest speaker, I think, a couple of times at our conferences. So this is Larry's take on how much The US was involved. He said, well, this is clearly a PR victory for Ukraine. It is a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory, I e a tactical win leading to a strategic defeat.
The Trump administration is denying any knowledge of the attack. I take that disavowal disavowal with a big grain of salt. People within the CIA and US US EUCOM offices who are providing assistance to Ukraine very likely knew about the plan and may have even provided intelligence support to get drones to their targets. Like any and this is important here. Like any covert operation, they may have tried to give Trump plausible deniability, but the Russians know how the game is played.
Now they certainly don't wanna make it look like Trump knew. And originally Axios, the news agency, had posted that Trump had been briefed beforehand. They changed that story quickly. They probably got an angry call from someone. They changed that quickly because Trump if Trump had officially been notified beforehand and knew of this and had approved it, it brings The US extremely close to war, especially according to Russia's updated nuclear doctrine, which, took place, I think was changed in 2023 that said, any country who uses either conventional or nuclear weapons to interfere with our nuclear triad will be responded to with a nuclear weapon against them.
Speaker 0: But Trump really gets in the middle of it because if he, knows about it and everybody knows he knows about it, like you say, that's that's a danger. Big time. But if he doesn't know about it, he doesn't say, where where is where are his helpers?
Speaker 1: Who's in charge? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and he's not bashful in finding out what's going on in his administration. So I I don't think, you know, they're trying right now to not, overburden, Trump. But eventually, history won't say, oh, yeah. He was he was out doing something, mowing his lawn.
Yeah. Playing some golf. He forgot.
Speaker 1: But Yeah.
Speaker 0: That'd be a better one.
Speaker 1: I mean, we think we we we had four years of now we realized that president Biden wasn't doing very much at all. If someone else was doing even signing the stuff, it wasn't him. So now the question arises, how much is Trump involved with these things? Now this next clip is something that I have not been able to verify. So I'm just putting it out there.
It's something on x, may or may not be true, but it's something to ponder. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegsef received real time information on the development of the Ukraine drone attacks on Russian air bases on June 1. How involved was HEGCEV in the planning and execution of this? And did he apprise his commander in chief, president Trump, of the operation? It's a big question, and we don't have the answer to that.
And one other thing before we go into someone that we do know was involved in it, if you go to that next one, now this is something I don't know that we talked about it on the show, Doctor. Paul, but this is something very bizarre that Trump put out on his social media a few days ago, I e, a few days before the attack. Donald Trump wrote, what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia. And I mean, really bad, all caps. He's playing with fire.
Now this may just be a coincidence that he put this out a couple of days before the drone attacks, Doctor. Paul, but it certainly leaves a lot of people scratching their heads as to what he was talking about, who he was holding back from doing really bad things to Russia, and whether he voluntarily stopped withholding them or they opposed him, defied him, and did it anyway. Very interesting in my opinion.
Speaker 0: You you know, the think Hecc Heccith has a tremendous amount of power. And, I have a statement here of just a general statement on what he how he thinks that the military and, of course, this was in relation to Taiwan, but it should be these these are his thoughts on on a position that he has a lot to say about war. And in quotes, he says, in certain circumstances, if deterrence fails and if called upon by my commander in chief, we are prepared to do what the Department of Defense does best. This is where I get a little loud. What do they do best?
Fight and win decisively. And my reaction was, I wonder if he remembers Vietnam. I wonder if he remembers anything about Korea. I wonder if he remembers anything in The Middle East
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: One or two. What does he know about Afghanistan? Afghanistan. What is what about did we win clear? Oh, no.
We're still fighting Ukraine. Yeah. So maybe he still has a chance. But that that to me is is an attitude that is is is so pompous. You know?
What about the Hooties? The Hooties? Hooties. They're winning too. That's that gets to show that wars that are done carelessly and and not following the rules like declaring war and getting people truly behind it and and pay for them instead of it turning into a money game and, you you know, competition.
Who owns this land and border disputes? So to me, it's a shame. But this idea that I think most Americans want that to happen. I can remember us talking about, well, if you get involved, why don't you fight? It.
It. And it was Go home. On and on and on. And I thought sometimes I got to thinking, maybe they don't want it to end real fast. Every once in a while, you look at that and and you think it could be over, but they don't do something.
Oh, boy. We better spend some more money. We need to send more money. Maybe this will happen for look. The Ukrainians aren't doing that badly.
If they can do this, they may be on the upper hand. We better help them before Russia invades Europe. You know? Who knows?
Speaker 1: Well, on Hegseth, he also made another boneheaded gaffe at that same speech because he was talking about The US would go to war with China for Taiwan, not realizing realizing, I suppose, that our long standing policy has been a one China policy. We don't recognize the independence of Taiwan as a separate country in the first place. So he put his foot in his mouth. He I guess he's good at exercising with the troops, but maybe not necessarily understanding the complexities of foreign policy or running the Pentagon. But, I do wanna go on, doctor Paul, because our speculation is, did the president know?
How much did he know? Did Hag Seth know? We know one person who has been involved, and he's been involved in a long for a long time. That's why we titled this from Kiev Lindsey Graham blows up Trump's Ukraine policy because president Trump has said, since before he was elected, my goal is to end the war in Ukraine. And I believe he is sincere in this.
I believe he really wants to end the war. But we know that senator Graham does not want the war to end. In fact, he wants to undermine president Trump's foreign policy when it comes to Ukraine. And so think about this, doctor Paul. Just two days before the spectacular Ukrainian attack, here comes Lindsey Graham with Senator Dick Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut.
They arrive in Kiev to have talks with Zelensky two days before the attack. What were they talking about? Was he giving them a green light? What was his involvement in this? Was it just a coincidence that he happened to show up a couple of days before?
Speaker 0: But that would raise the question, does Graham have that much clout that he can turn these bombs on or off again that they get the directions from him? And yet, that would indicate a close association with the entire administration and including the boss. Yeah. But, that raises as many questions as it answers for me.
Speaker 1: You know, we've always been critical of the strong presidency, of course. But really according to the constitution, the president does have broad foreign policy authority. It's legitimate constitutional authority. You can't just have a senator or congressman or Joe Blow going overseas and making US policy. It doesn't work that way.
It's it's a recipe for disaster.
Speaker 0: Oh, and that that has happened sometimes where where they start the war and, carelessly starting it, and then then our troops get in harm's way. Yeah. If you vote against it, you you don't even care about protecting our troops. You won't even you send over the money for them to come home, and, you know, the the whole hypocrisy of that issue.
Speaker 1: Well, I wanna show a couple of clips now. This is the keep in mind the context. This is two days before the spectacular attacks against Russia. Here is senator Lindsey Graham arriving in Kiev. Let's put that first clip on.
I'm just gonna I have I have four clips, doctor Paul. I'm just gonna play them one by one just so we get the timeline down. I'm gonna go in reverse order so we get the context of how involved Graham is. Let's do that first one now. Play the whole one.
Here he is arriving a couple of days ago. Here is Lindsey Graham after his meeting with president Zelensky giving a briefing to the press.
Speaker 2: President Trump said that Ukraine doesn't have good cards. Well, Russia's much bigger and has a lot more people. I get that. But the world has a lot of cards against Russia. And one of those cards that we have is about to be played in the United States Senate.
In America, you have more than one person at the card table. We have three branches of government, and the house and the senate are poised to act. What would change our mind if Russia came to the table, agreed to cease fire, and
Speaker 1: Here he is literally undermining president Trump's foreign policy. President Trump says that Ukraine doesn't have any cards on the table, but we and the rest of the world think they have a lot of cards on the table, so we're gonna pass legislation to keep this war going. You know? And these are his 500% bone crushing, tariffs on any country that does business with Russia, all these sorts of things. He's introduced now there are three branches of government as you know, doctor Paul, but not all three branches can make US foreign policy.
Speaker 0: Sounds like he doesn't just represent United States. He represents the world and everybody. Against his president.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's go to that third one now. Now this this is remember this. Okay.
Now this is don't play it quite yet because I wanna set it up. We remember this because we showed this clip on the show before doctor Paul. This is in 2016 before Trump was elected when it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to be elected if you remember. And she was very gung ho on war with Russia. And Trump was very, very low in the polls according to the official polls.
So senator Graham, the late John McCain, and Amy Klobuchar went over to to Ukraine just before the election and told the Ukrainian troops, you're gonna get your war against Russia soon. Let's play this as a reminder.
Speaker 2: I admire the fact that you will fight for your homeland. Your fight is our fight.
Speaker 1: 2017
Speaker 2: will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression.
Speaker 1: Okay. Can we stop that up here now? So he's promising them that next year, twenty seventeen will be the year of offense. I'm gonna go back home. And this is when he thought Hillary would win.
But what happened? A surprise victory for Trump, doctor Paul, and that ruined his plans. So what did he do after the surprise victory for Trump? He went on and he claimed that it was only Trump only won because the Russians interfered in our elections. He was one of the first originators of the Russiagate scam.
Let's do that last one and listen to him making that exact claim that Trump was not legitimately elected president.
Speaker 2: If, we're gonna go back and tell our colleagues what Russia's up to and the and the Baltics, what they're doing in the Ukraine. We're gonna get briefed about Georgia. We hope to make 2017 a year of offense. We believe that Putin has hacked into our elections in America, that he's trying to undermine democracy all over the world, and it's time for new sanctions to hit him hard as an individual, his energy sector, his banking sector.
Speaker 1: That one. So you get this timeline is important. He didn't get Hillary who he wanted, and so he claimed that the elections were stolen by Putin to put Trump in office.
Speaker 0: And, you know, if war was that important to him and we were endangered by policy that's going on, he's in the wrong place. Why isn't he talking to his colleagues and say, you know, the only way we can do this legitimately since we're defending, our constitution and our way of life and our system of government, why don't we, you know, get a commitment from the people through a declaration of war? Exactly. That drives them nuts. Yeah.
And and then when you bring a subject like that, this technicality, you're just interfering with our our brilliance. That's their attitude. Yeah. That they know they know what's best.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope someone has told president Trump what Lindsey Graham has been up to and how he's been undermining his foreign policy. We're critical of Trump. We don't like the way he's going about trying to achieve this peace. You know, we're the Monday morning quarterbacks on this perhaps, but we do admire his genuine interest in peace there. And so you have this guy going over there as a senator undermining the president's policy.
Yeah. It's terrible. Terrible stuff.
Speaker 2: Horrible.
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's move on if you like to the next one. And this is, I guess, a short update because it's the Iran situation. Now it's kind of a a busy Monday. Usually, sometimes on Monday, we don't really have much to talk about. But Iran has responded to The US offer during the latest rounds of negotiations and has rejected that offer.
My understanding of the offer was basically this, and this is a crude, interpretation of it. Essentially, Iran gives up all rights to enrichment. Iran gets rid of all enriched uranium. And the, in exchange, Iran doesn't get sanctions relief immediately, but in a gradual way. And this goes up against several of the red lines.
So at this point, the talks are stalled, it looks like, unfortunately, with Iran. So
Speaker 0: You know, in in this, debate going on about, how to handle this, president president Trump argued that any revised nuclear accord with Iran should permit this is this is where I I run into a brick wall. Should permit The United States to destroy the country's nuclear infrastructure and send inspectors to Iran facilities at any time. Allow us to blow up whatever we want. And and so it's almost it's it's almost speaking for Graham. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Or Netanyahu. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a it's a terrible position when that came out.
Actually, you put that last clip up because this is this is for an anti war. Trump says new Iran deal must allow US to quote, blow up whatever we want. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Trump wants a deal.
He says he doesn't wanna he wasn't wanna bomb Iran. But I don't know who told him that this would be a good thing to say to convince the Iranians that this is a good deal. Hey. Let's sign immediately. This sounds like a heck of a deal for us.
We get to get blown up whenever he wants.
Speaker 0: So Well, you know, it's a it's a it's a problem for us. Where do we go? Of course, we've been in politics per se in a way, you know, trying to get a message out there, and we we we did a teeny bit of good. I'm sure there. But I think ultimately, what we're trying to do here with our supporters that tune us in to try to understand what's going on and, we have to wake up the people.
But the people do wake up, but it's always in in my estimation a little late because the propagandists the grams get, you know, front road on this and they get this the people who want the war and want the spending. They said, oh, no, we don't want to war. We we just want the profits. Yeah. You know, we have to have a reason, but it's always to make us safe and have a security and they give us justification and it's hard for people to dissect it out.
It I think it's because they don't have enough information. But I think we live in an age where we shouldn't cry about that because, you you know, I've been trying to get a message out for a long time and it's usually one person at a time. And even now, it's a minuscule, but it's out out there. There's a few talk shows or pundits on tell on on on the interviews on on the Internet. It's they're fantastic.
Yeah. And and there's a lot of bad stuff, but it's available for the people. So I think I think we we try in our our meager way to wake people up, and sometimes we do. But that's a big job. But I I just keep thinking if you wake up one, they might wake up ten.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You know? And and an idea, if it's really a good one and you can alert the people, it can't be stopped, and I hope peace can't be stopped.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll keep doing it. I'm gonna close out. I do wanna thank George's too kicked in $40. He quoted something that Thomas Massey put up on x, and and I won't I don't have the exact quote before me, but Massey was talking about the slaughters in Gaza of civilians, and he said The US should end all military aid to Israel. It's probably the first time in a long time a member of the House of Representatives made that statement, and I'm sure there are a lot of knives that are being drawn, hopefully only metaphorically, for Massey pursuing that.
So thanks, Georges, for helping support us. And I do want to remind all of you of August 16, our DC Dulles conference. We're gonna have tickets on sale in the next couple of days, maybe as early as tomorrow. I just gotta get a couple of things ironed out. It's gonna be a really good one.
It's gonna be a lot of fun as usual. I haven't talked about it in a while. I've just been getting some things organized about it, but you're all gonna wanna go there August 16, make plans to come join us. Over to you, doctor Paul.
Speaker 0: Very good. I want to talk a minute about paying for wars and all these involvements that we have around the world. Because, you know, today I mentioned the fact that the gold price was real high because this incident, big incident that's occurring in Russia and and with the Zelensky. And the the response is that we're gonna keep spending. But it's also the answer to it.
If we didn't have a monetary system that promises to monetize all debt, you know, nobody could even think about doing this. We wouldn't have the money. We wouldn't have the resources. We wouldn't rob the poor people by giving them inflation and paying all the bills. We wouldn't expose all the innocent victims who die in these wars.
And that is if you say that we don't have the money, we can't do it, we'll seek peace in another manner. And believe me, there are other methods with this with in doing this other than looking for a nuclear holocaust where there are ways that with this can be worked out. So honest money can do a lot to steer us in the right direction following the constitution about you can't we can't get involved in these wars. And they say, well, we'll do it secretly and you won't know about it. And, and then we'll have the media on our side.
We'll have the military in complex on our side. We'll have the educational system on our side. And so far, they're getting away with it. But we need to awaken a lot of people still to resist the temptation to support this type of an attitude because it's leading us to a very, very dangerous period in our our history. And yet the answer is not complicated.
It's easily done, and that is just seeking out the precise definition of peace and prosperity. I believe that is the way to go. I wanna thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report. Please come back soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
I announced that the REAL ID scheme will be implemented at the end of the month, which I believe poses a significant threat to civil liberties. Additionally, the State Department arrested a foreign Tufts student despite knowing she wasn't involved in any terrorist or antisemitic activities. Why was this action taken?
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem announced Friday that the the notorious PATRIOT Act-era REAL ID scheme would go into effect at the end of the month. REAL ID is one of the greatest threats to Americans' civil liberties in decades. Also today: The State Department knew before arresting a foreign Tufts student that she was not involved in terrorist or antisemitic activities. So why did they do it? Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss concerns about the Real ID Act and its potential impact on privacy and civil liberties. They cite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's announcement to enforce Real ID starting May 7, requiring a high-resolution digital facial image to travel by air or visit federal buildings.
They reference Thomas Massie's criticism, arguing Real ID won't stop terrorists but is a tool for controlling Americans. Concerns are raised about the Act's potential to be used to restrict Second Amendment rights, referencing California's past attempts.
They highlight a case where a Tufts University student was detained and faced deportation for alleged antisemitism, despite the State Department finding no evidence to support the claims. They note the irony of a pro-Israel group defending her free speech rights.
Finally, they discuss the drop in European travel to the U.S., attributing it to a backlash against Trump's policies and worries about the treatment of foreigners, potentially harming the U.S. economy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, welcome to the program.
Speaker 1: Happy Monday, Doctor. Pole. How are you today? Doing well. Thank you.
Anything going on?
Speaker 0: Little bits of things. They're gonna be talking about identification. And I think identification is good. When we were raising our kids, my wife did a very good job. She always knew who they were hanging around with.
And her strategy was they shouldn't go out and on the streets and do things. So she said they should come to our place and swim in our swimming pool.
Speaker 1: That's a smart move.
Speaker 0: So but ideas are very important. I mean, we interview people. We work with people. We make major decisions. We make major decisions when we person per purchase something.
We wanna know who the people are. Are they trustworthy? Yeah. And governments, you know, probably have some responsibility on this. You know, sorta like maybe maybe the people that vote are registered voters or citizens, you know.
And yet now there's a lot of interest in this bill, which was concocted a few years ago, called the real ID. This is the real McCoy. And I was wondering, you were working with me at the time. I wonder, I often wondered whether that's because they wanna make sure that nobody cheats when they're voting and everybody's a citizen. But it turns out that's not exactly what they have mind about making sure this idea.
But it sounds like bad news. And I don't know what year it was, but I thought it was bad news then. And the news is not getting any better. And it looks like when you have an administration that tends to think and agree with you on this particular issue with less government and privacy and these things, that there wouldn't be a challenge. But it looks to me like they're, you know, reigniting this whole thing.
We need it right away because there might be a terrorist in your backyard. And we don't want nine eleven to happen again because we could only have had real ID. You you know that story, don't you? Exactly. So so anyway, identification is is very important, has to deal with the issue of privacy.
And it's a it's a shame, but I I'm not very happy with the direction we're going right now. It looks like we're gonna lose a lot more privacy if this bill gets reopened and made much worse. And it looks like it can do a lot more damage yet to come.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And I mean, I have to say Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem is turning into a real disappointment. Oh. Because this is one of a number of things that she's done that really kind of back up what you warned back when they created the department. It's gonna be limiting our liberties, not anyone else's.
We'll put them this first clip. This is from Newsmax and they recognize Christy Noem came out on Friday afternoon and she said, I got news for everyone. We are going to start enforcing Real ID, I think as of May 1. So Newsmax came out today, Real ID announcement receives wave of pushback on X which is good, which is good. And you go to the next one.
Here's what Noam did Friday evening. Now that's when they always do something. They don't want to have any, you know, people noticing it. She announced a digital ID known as real ID, which requires a high resolution digital facial image would be required by May 7 to fly. Starting May 7, you will need a real ID to travel by air or to visit federal buildings in The U S she said in a video on X, these IDs keep our country safe because they help prevent fraud and they enhance security.
And as soon as she said that a backlash ensued on X, including Doctor. Paul by our great friend, Thomas Massey. Go to the next one. Massey hit it right on the head. He called BS on Kristi Noem.
He said, Real ID isn't needed and it won't stop terrorists from hijacking planes. Most of the nineeleven hijackers held Saudi, UAE, Egyptian or Lebanese passports. Real ID is a national standard and database of IDs that is primarily a tool for control of Americans. Trump shouldn't enforce it, he said. Go on, in February Keep it up there if you can.
So this is the background in 02/2005, go back. 02/2005, President George W. Bush, now here's the kicker, you remember this, Doctor. Paul, signed the REAL ID Act into law. It was authored by representative James Sensenbrenner, the same author of the Patriot Act.
You remember those times. Sensenbrenner was going nuts writing all these bills.
Speaker 0: Yes. And they portrayed him as a great civil libertarian and and working for our privacy. That's the most insulting thing is what the said. It was issued to make us safe. Yeah.
They always turn it and twist it around and sort of like, we need the federal reserve so nobody ever counterfeits money.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That we want we want the monopoly. Exactly. And this is what this is, monopoly over control. And the other thing is, if this administration allows that to go, what about states handling the issue identification? You know, you have to find out that a nine year old isn't playing with the eight year olds and getting away with it, but maybe their local school board or somebody else can deal with that.
But here here they want this national law.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And it is it is really, a dangerous thing. And I I know over the years, we've we've talked about this, but then there was a sort of a law. And you would think, maybe let it go to sleep. I mean, we have new people up there. And they believe in the republic.
They believe in privacy. And look at look at what's happening now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's been sitting around. It passed in o five and it's just been sitting around. No one's done anything to it.
No one has really enforced it. Now all of a sudden, Kristine Owen wakes up and says, you know what? I'm going to go ahead and enforce this, you know? And so let's go to a little bit more from the Newsmax article. Now, the criticism is not coming from the left.
It doesn't seem primarily. Thankfully, it's a lot on the right. Now go to that next clip. In light of the thousands of criticisms NUM's post received, according to the American Policy Center, and this is a quote, this is important. The REAL ID Act has, and you'll recognize this, Doctor.
Paul, the REAL ID Act has many tentacles that are each very egregious. The law P. O. 100 ninethirteen, the REAL ID Act of 02/2005 is not a terribly long law. And you remember this part, Doctor.
Paul, but it does have hundreds of pages that were published as part of the rule making process. Remember how they did that. And among those, go to the next one. Here's the thing that you warned about at the time. In effect, I have the receipts.
I'm gonna bring them up in a second. Among those rules, the organization outlined is the risk of losing your second amendment. Now here is that conservative group, American Policy Center, they wrote, you may wrongly believe the secretary of the department of Homeland Security would never add purchasing a firearm and or ammunition to the official purchase of the REAL ID Act of 02/2005, they wrote. In fact, Democrats in California have already made a move in that direction. Now the attempt failed at the time because all States and Commonwealths were not yet certified as being Real ID compliant.
Well, we know that's changing. They continue. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security certified all States commonwealths as being REAL ID compliant. So there it is, what you said before that they're gonna use it to take away other constitutional rights. They said, Oh, Ron, stop exaggerating.
California tried to do that exact thing.
Speaker 0: Boy, I'll tell you. The more things change, the more they stay the same. You can never let your guard down. You know, I often think about what the relationship is currently with Elon Musk and Trump and the administration because everybody says, well, he's fading out. He's not involved, and he's discovering things that maybe we were misleading people a little bit on how many miracles we were gonna create.
Because I'd love to know exactly what he thinks about this. Well, I think he's expressed himself on tariffs. Yeah. Don't think he I think I think he knows enough about tariffs to understand the evil and terror and and all all of this thing. But he I I would think his instincts, and he's written a couple things that were almost no to us that he indicated he sorta liked some of the things that we were doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So but I'm those are the things that makes me curious, but I guess I'll I'll never know unless he keeps up his work. Well, can
Speaker 1: come on the show. That's right. We have to do that. Well, here is a blast from the past. And I tell you, I was just talking to our friend in the back early before this show started that I can't believe it's been twenty years, but I remember us all working on this.
Norm was working on it a lot. I was working on it. We were working together on this. Go to this next clip. This is a blast from the past 02/12/2005.
I found it, Doctor. Paul. This is your statement opposing the original REAL ID Act. And unfortunately I couldn't get the video to work, but it's great. I rise in strong opposition to HR four eighteen, the REAL ID Act.
This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into The United States and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse.
It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American, our constitutionally protected liberty. I'm just gonna read a little bit more of it if you don't mind, Doctor. Paul, because go to the next one. You bring up the second amendment in this. The bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
It redefines terrorism in broad new terms. So that sounds familiar, that could and well include members of firearms rights and anti abortion groups or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person's exercise of first amendment rights or a person's appearance on a registry of firearms owners. You go along to add that these IDs could include things like retina scans, fingerprints, DNA info, and even RFID radio tracking technology, which would mean that other governments would also be able to track our info. So you said it at the time, you warned, be careful conservatives, you're doing here.
Be careful Republicans because this will be used against Americans. Here we have it. And you
Speaker 0: found this in a government record?
Speaker 1: I thought it went anti war not caught.
Speaker 0: No. Because I was wondering, I was I was told it was erased. The whole government record, you know, subversive, you know, ideas like this, defending the second amendment and and pretending that you might see consequences. Well, there are consequences and most of them for politicians, they wish they wouldn't come, but they're unintended as well. And they surprise themselves how terrible their legislation can be.
And I think we're starting to witness some of that about the consequences of tariff wars. There's a lot of fuss going on there now, but if we eliminate this, we talk about loss of privacy, but I would tell the story that a very famous right for, you know, conservative libertarian many decades ago said that if you ever have an organization like the like the CIA and they take over, this was after well, it was it was back when the I think when the nine eleven thing was happening. If you if you have the CIA or the Kennedy assassination Yeah. If you have the CIA taken over, he says, if you have a CIA not not what they do. If you have a CIA operation, you cannot have a republic Yeah.
Because it's secret government. Just think just think of, you know, the first time I was a little bit shocked about this, you know, Clinton was running for president. Yeah. And he was in the campaign. And they they took from years before that records of him saying and and dealing with, you know, his his friends and and then revealed this.
I said, even they something like that. It wasn't president. He was into politics, but they had records of that Yeah. Years before. And and they already measure everything.
And technology technology, you know, it's a it's a double edged swords like nuclear energy.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: It could be a blessing in disguise and and really be beneficial to everyone for energy and whatnot. And it's also a deadly weapon that, you know you know, we know what the devastation is physically, but what about this type of operation? I put it in the category of approaching the advice that I got a long time ago. If you have secret organizations, and this is it it will destroy the republic. Yes.
And and this is just more of that, more secrecy. And it's done and I guess the worst part are the lies they tell in order to get this passed. You know you know, my statement, if you brought a bill to me, I said, you know, Daniel, just look at the title. We'll we'll figure out. I remember who you somebody like you told me, say, you know, some of our pay know, our friends and other departments say, you guys have it easy.
All you have to do is find out if it's anti, is it against the constitution? And then your job is done wrong. This is not a constitutional process.
Speaker 1: We don't have to read the 2,000 page bill. Well, want to thank Commodore twenty twenty. He kicked in $20 today and he said, don't believe this is not going to be a neo vaxx passport, which is possible. Now it's not exclusive right now, but who's going to stop them from having your vaccine records on it, you know? But thankfully someone is carrying the banner that you carried twenty years ago and that someone is Thomas Massey.
Now he came out with a bunch of posts on X when Kristi Noem made her dumb announcement. And here's, I've just picked out a couple of the better ones. Now listen, people will find this radical, but think about it. He says, as long as a pilot's door is locked and no one has weapons, why do you care that someone who flies has government permission? Real ID provides no benefit yet presents a serious risk to freedom.
If a person can't be trusted to fly without weapons, why are they roaming free? Very good point. And here's another more. He explains it to people who don't get it. They don't understand what Real ID is.
He says, Real ID isn't a database. It's proof that your physical person matches an entry in the digital database. Its power and purpose will be realized when everyone complies, but not before. This is responsive to the, I didn't give them much information. I've had one for years.
Why worry argument he makes. So it's not essentially a database in itself. It is the relationship between that card that you hold and the database that exists already. And they can add to it. Remember we talked about it, they can add anything they want.
Vax records, gun records, civil liberties, first amendment records, anything could be added
Speaker 0: to it. You know, I keep up with my medical license. I like the idea that in an emergency, I still wanna be
Speaker 1: a doctor. Yeah. Sure.
Speaker 0: You have to have the license. So you have to play the game. You have a driver's license, this sort of thing. So I I went I went along with that. But this year, I got a notice.
And they said, you can't even apply for your license until you are fingerprinted by the FBI. And and I, you know, called in. I said, why why do I have to be investigated by the FBI? And I fingerprinted. I said, you know, I've I was in the military for a long time.
I flew in airplanes with nuclear arsenals, and I was cleared there. And I I've I've been a doctor all these years, and we have I had this license for some thirty some years. And on and on, I said, even in congress, I had access, you you know, to security information. Course, I didn't avoid I didn't I didn't pretend to read it because they were that was propaganda. Yeah.
Mostly was. So so anyway, you know, I had all this. I said, why do I have to start doing this and and getting and it was and I I flunked the first test. Uh-oh. I went in there and they hadn't been doing it was all I thought I was gonna do this.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm thumbing. Whatever.
Speaker 0: I had all all my fingers and everything. Side, dude, upside down. And they they called me and said, get it passed. But I finally got a pass. So I can prescribe the medication again.
Speaker 1: Or emergency surgery on the set of the Liberty report. The next one we want to cover is also disturbing another attack on civil liberties. We hate reporting it as much as we hate having to report it and seeing it happen. Now this is something our good friend, Jim Bovard put up on Facebook this morning and caught my attention immediately. This is shocking because we've covered this story, Doctor.
Paul, when they arrested this graduate student from Tufts University. We showed the video of her being arrested. You can see that in the lower left. She was approached in the street by plainclothes people with masks on who put handcuffs on her. Well, here is something incredible about that arrest, Doctor.
Paul. This is the Washington Post. No evidence linking Tufts student to antisemitism or terrorism the state department found. Okay, go to the next one. Now they didn't do an investigation afterwards, Doctor.
Paul, no. Days before, masked immigration and customs enforcement agents detained Tufts University student, Ramesa Ozturk to deport her, the state department had determined that the Trump administration had not provided, produced any evidence showing that she engaged in antisemitic activities or made public statements supporting a terrorist organization as the government had alleged. They alleged that she arrested her and are kicking her out because of her antisemitism and terrorism support. They knew days before they did it that there was no such thing as that they made it up.
Speaker 0: But you know, I'm always looking for the favorable side. This is good. In spite of all these horrors that we put up with and they're expanding, that truth breaks through. Here's some individuals. So we cannot say everybody that works for the government, their intentions are to, you know, to bring on the revolution and turn it over to Soviet type communism.
Speaker 1: So
Speaker 0: this to me is is so important individuals like this. So somebody investigated was telling the truth, but the real crime, the the big crime is the refusal to look at it and march on with a policy that which is destructive to our whole system to undermine the truth. I call them nihilists. They don't wanna hear the truth. Nihilism is alive and well in Washington, especially if they have political power.
Yeah. Because they they have to lie, you know, to keep the empire going.
Speaker 1: And that's Marco Rubio. He's an I think he's a nihilist in a way because he's the one behind this. And he's the one who had to have known. And go to the next one from the post piece. The finding continued in a March memo that was described to Washington Post said, and I highlighted this, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not have sufficient grounds for revoking Auschwitz visa under an authority empowering the top US Diplomat to safeguard the foreign policy interests of The US.
The memo written by an office within the State Department raises doubts about the public accusations made by the Trump administration. Now go to the next one. We will refresh your memories. Why was she arrested? Did she bang some Jewish students over the head?
No. She wrote an op, she co wrote an op ed last year in the student newspaper criticizing her university's response to the Israel Gaza war. Full stop. That's all she did. Now go and this is how, because of that, she expressed her first amendment rights, which you have if you're a citizen or not.
If you go to the next one, they originally recommended revocation of her visa, unwritten authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows for the deportation, sorry, of a foreigner. If the secretary of state has reasonable grounds to believe that person's present or activities has adverse policy consequences for The United States. And that's somewhat troubling Doctor. Paul, because if the person of the Secretary of State has a policy that half of Americans may not agree with it, half of people who are here may not agree with it. And then they express, you know, I really don't like that policy.
They can be kicked out of the country. That is disturbing, even if people are saying in the audience right now, I'm sure, Well, they were guests here. That's fine. They came here because they love our system. They love our constitution and they wanna share in it.
And what are they getting? Kicked in the teeth.
Speaker 0: But, you know, they will punish the individual if they can't kick them out or whatever. But the other thing they do is we're gonna really punish you because your college campuses, your university are permitting them to say these things. They're them to criticize our foreign policy. So we have to stop that. Then it comes in stopping of the clarification and giving us our freedom again, is that what we have to do is take the money away from the university because it's a weapon.
So all this funding is usually just something that they can remove. I think there was a story today about Trump. He was taking oh, he says, they they're lying. They were saying these things and they said, blah blah blah. And they and he says, we need to take away that license.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Saw that.
Speaker 0: But that, of course, is an argument for not having licensure. You But that was started a long time ago. And and for a long, long time, they were that technology has really helped, you know, competition and not having having a license even I I don't think I should say it too loud, but you and I don't think we have to have a license for this. Not yet. I just have to have it for medical care.
Speaker 1: Call Christy Norm. Maybe she'll make us get one. You know, the fact is that antisemitism is a very ugly thing. It's the expression of very ugly views. Religion is considered a serious sin.
However, according to our first amendment, you're allowed to be antisemitic or even express antisemitic thoughts as long as you don't take action to harm people. So the fact that she wasn't found having antisemitic thoughts was good, it's nice. However, that shouldn't be grounds either because we have a first amendment, as you always say, not to talk about the weather. But here's a little bit of a good news. Here's a little bit in my opinion of a silver lining in the shadow.
Because while the government was grabbing this woman and deporting her, the students on campus who disgusted by what she said and disagreed with her, nevertheless stood up for her. This is from the same Washington Post article. And I'm gonna read it because we need a little bit of dose of good news that the young people, as you always say, the young people get it. Put this next clip on video of Ozturk nabbed on the streets of suburban Boston by plainclothes agents drew international attention to her case and sparked widespread debate about suppressing the speech by the Trump administration. At Tufts, Ostrope's arrest drew intense criticism, including from a pro Israel group on campus and the Tufts Republicans.
Here's a quote. We strongly oppose the content of the op ed that Ozturk co authored last year, read an op ed by Tufts Friends of Israel, But restricting freedom of speech is flat out undemocratic and anti American. Freedom of speech in a democracy is sacred. It ensures that dissent is heard and that people can express themselves. It is the best tool we have to fight tyranny.
Right now, our freedom of speech is under attack. Hats off to the Tufts friends of Israel for that great What
Speaker 0: they're using is the principle of pointing out hypocrisy. Yes. People will wake up and they have an instinct. I think everybody has it. It's available to them if they want the instinct of being honest and upfront.
So if if they come in and find out that they're saying one thing and doing something else and they're punishing them, point out and then they and this point out, this happened with COVID. Remember when the people who were, you know, or or, you know, arresting people and saying you can't do this, and they loved all the authority have at the local level. It didn't even take the UN to do this. It took just local school boards and everything else. They they loved this, and they would, you know, want want to punish them.
But the the hypocrisy is what made people angry. Remember Nancy Pelosi and a few others? They they were they were out partying. At this other time, they were saying, you can't even leave your house. Exactly.
Know? If you go down to the beach, you better wear your mask.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Well, I think our last little bit, this will be a short one because we're running short on time, but I think we're talking about it because it's related. Because the rest of the world is seeing plainclothes, masked people grabbing people off the streets, throwing them into jail and then deporting them from the country. Well, what is the rest of the world gonna say?
I'm not going there. Go to this next one now. This is what's we're seeing it now in the numbers. European travel to The US dropped 17% amid Trump backlash and worries about the treatment of foreigners. Now go to the next one.
So it's way down, people aren't coming here, but listen to this Doctor. Paul, people aren't merely opting not to visit The US, more foreigners are canceling the trips that they've already booked. The cancellation rate left 17% in the first quarter compared to last year. The cancellation rate among French, German and British would be visitors soaring 40%. Now, I'm sure some of those people hate Trump.
They don't like his policies. They don't like his views on a number of things, but you can't discount this possibility that people are genuinely frightened to come in the country. And here's a very graphic representation of travel to The US. Now go to that next one. Here's that chart.
I'm sure you saw that chart, Doctor. Paul, on zero hedge, but bam, look at that everyone, everyone across the board. And I sent it to you this morning, and I used the word unintended consequences on the subject line, because this is gonna hurt us.
Speaker 0: You know, those charts are so dramatic. It doesn't come from the efficiency of government, even when they wanna crack down on people, they say, don't do this, don't do this. This comes from the people making their decision and they had access to some information. And that's why this age of information is so valuable, even though it's a weapon too. It can be used against us.
But because there's outside the three major networks, people get to hear about this and they will react. The other thing that people forget, and I don't mention it often enough because they talk about, you know, tariffs. Is it gonna help the businessman? Is it gonna help this company or, you know, on and on? It will help labor.
What's it gonna do? And I was taught, and I happen to accept the principle that the market freedom protects only one group. The whole goal is the consumer. Yes. The people who buy and sell.
And when they're satisfied, they vote. Every dollar is a vote. And that's pure democracy. The only type of democracy I really like.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I think that that this is this is what we're seeing now. When you see this, people acted. I mean, this is worldwide. This is how many ten, fifteen countries.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. That's amazing. They're they're voting with their dollar, like you said. Yeah.
Speaker 0: There's no privacy and that that's that's good. But anyway, it just incentivizes the government. They just work harder. Oh, well, we don't have a good enough southern stuff, but we need a real ID. Yeah.
A real one. So they march on and never quit.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Put this last clip on. This is because I wanted to find out what's the what are we talking about in dollars? Who's it gonna hurt? It's gonna hurt the economy.
Put on that last one on. Similarly, CEO of French tour operator Voyager Dumont told CNN that US bookings since Trump's inauguration have fallen 20%. Now again, we could say that a lot of people just don't like Trump. They hate Trump, whatever. That's part of it.
But he said in the thirty years I've been in this business, I have never seen anything like this for any destination. It's huge. And then here's the interesting part that I highlighted. Tourism represents 2.5% of America's economy and international travelers spent $253,000,000,000 on US trips last year. If they stop coming because they don't want to get nabbed on the street, it's gonna be a real shock to The US economy.
Speaker 0: You you know, I would suggest that if people looked at how much hostility is directed toward China, and they deserve they deserve criticism and all that stuff. But they the the China we why do they have these edges? It's because we vote, we buy their stuff. They didn't come over here with a gun. They didn't invade us and say, we're gonna take over your gold mines or coal mines and take over your business.
They they they make stuff. Oh, yeah. But their labor is cheaper. Well, the the you know, the consumer if you look after the consumer, the consumer gets the advantages of freedom. Yeah.
And unfortunately, everybody puts in the category. Labor gets divided up, business people come up. And what does it do? It turns out that there are if the best investment that businessman can make now is hiring a real smart lobbyist Yeah. No.
Or a powerful lobbyist, a ruthless lobbyist to go and demand what he wants. So that is tragic. Did you have another statement?
Speaker 1: Or No. No. I was gonna close out and just thank everyone for watching the show and hit that thumbs up or the like button, if you can and get our show spread around. We appreciate it very much and over to you, Doctor. Paul.
Okay.
Speaker 0: And I'll close out too as well, because I want to express my deep appreciation for all of you who have too did. And we are gonna continue this effort because we believe that we're making headway. A lot of times the news won't tell us how many people are there, but some of these statistics we talked about today, people will be rallied. They will rally against the nonsense of COVID lockdowns. So as long as we can speak out, I consider the first amendment vital.
And I truly despise it when I see the government coming in and they have the club. Give everybody some money. If they don't say what we want, we take away their money. And it's it's a you you know, it it's a use of force and intimidation. But what maybe it'll help when we run out of money and the money doesn't work.
Maybe we'll have to work on different operation. But in the meantime, we will continue to fight for liberty and and for free markets. And and on on that occasion, I would say if we're looking for peace and prosperity, that's the best way to go. Wanna thank you for tuning in today to the Liberty Report. Please come back soon.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
What Is Kristi Noem Doing? REAL ID is Tyrannical ... Authored By The Same Author of The Patriot Act! https://t.co/y2nj90Avou
Video Transcript AI Summary
Homeland Security Secretary Christine Noem announced that Real ID enforcement would begin May 7, requiring a high-resolution digital facial image to travel by air or visit federal buildings. She claimed these IDs enhance security and prevent fraud.
This announcement received backlash, including criticism from Thomas Massie, who called Real ID unnecessary and a tool for control. Massie argued that Real ID won't stop terrorists and pointed out that the 9/11 hijackers held passports from other countries.
Real ID was signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush and authored by James Sensenbrenner, who also authored the Patriot Act. Massie explained that Real ID isn't a database itself but proof that a physical person matches an entry in a digital database. He warned that its power will be realized when everyone complies and that records, such as vax records or gun records, could be added to it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Homeland Security secretary, Christine Ohm, is turning into a real disappointment. Oh. Because this is one of a
Speaker 1: number of things that she's done that really kinda back up what she warned back when they created the department. It's gonna be it's gonna be limiting our liberties, not anyone else's. We'll put them this first clip. This is from Newsmax, and they recognize so so Christy Noem came out on Friday afternoon, and she said, I got news for everyone. We are gonna start enforcing Real ID, I think, as of May 1.
So Newsmax came out today. Real ID announcement receives wave of pushback on x, which is good, which is good. And you go to the next one. Here's what Noam did. Friday evening, now that's when they always do something they don't wanna have any, you know, people noticing it.
She announced a digital ID known as Real ID, which requires a high resolution digital facial image would be required by May 7 to fly. Starting May 7, you will need a real ID to travel by air or to visit federal buildings in The US, she said in a video on x. These IDs keep our country safe because they help prevent fraud and they enhance security. And as soon as she said that, a backlash ensued on x, including doctor Paul by our great friend, Thomas Massey. Go to the next one.
Massey hit it right on the head. He called BS on Kristi Noem. He said, REAL ID isn't needed, and it won't stop terrorists from hijacking planes. Most of the nine eleven hijackers held Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, or Lebanese passports. Real ID is a national standard and bay database of IDs that is primarily a tool for control of Americans.
Trump shouldn't enforce it, he said. 02/2005, president George w Bush now here's the kicker. You remember this, doctor Paul, signed the REAL ID Act into law. It was authored by representative James Sensenbrenner, the same author of the Patriot Act. You remember those times.
Sensenbrenner was going nuts writing all these bills.
Speaker 2: Yes. And they portrayed him as a great civil libertarian and and and and working for our privacy. That's the most insulting thing is what the said. It was issued to make us safe. Yeah.
They always turn it and twist it around and sort of like, we need the federal reserve so nobody ever counterfeits money.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: That we want we want the monopoly. Exactly. This is what this is. Monopoly over control. I'm not very happy with the direction we're going right now.
It looks like we're gonna lose a lot more privacy if this bill gets reopened and made much worse, and it looks like it can do a lot more damage yet to come.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's been sitting around. It passed in o five, and it's just been sitting around. No one's done anything to it. No one has really enforced it.
Now all of a sudden, Kristi, no one makes up and says, you know what? I'm gonna go ahead and enforce this. You know? And so let's go to a little bit more from the Newsmax article. Now it's the criticism is not coming from the left.
It doesn't seem primarily. Thankfully, it's a lot on the right. Thankfully, someone is carrying the banner that you carried twenty years ago, and that someone is Thomas Massey. Now he came out with a bunch of posts on x when Christine Noem made her dumb announcement. And here's I've just picked out a couple of the better ones.
Now this is people find this radical, but think about it. He says, as long as a pilot's door is locked and no one has weapons, why do you care that someone who flies has government permission? Real ID provides no benefit yet presents a serious risk to freedom. If a person can't be trusted to fly without weapons, why are they roaming free? Very good point.
And here's another more. He explains it to people who don't get it. They don't understand what Real ID is. He says, Real ID isn't a database. It's proof that your physical person matches an entry in the digital database.
Its power and purpose will be realized when everyone complies, but not before. This is responsive to the, I didn't give them much information. I've had one for years. Why worry? Argument he makes.
So it's not essentially a database in itself. It is the relationship between that card that you hold and the database that exists already, and they can add to it. Remember we talked about they can add anything they want, vax records, gun records, civil liberties, first amendment records, anything could be added to
Speaker 0: it.
reSee.it AI Summary
As more evidence suggests that I didn't sign most documents during my presidency, including pardons, I'm left wondering what I didn't know and when. Additionally, there's concern about whether the "peace candidate" is leading us toward war with Iran.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
As more evidence emerges that former President Biden did not actually sign most of the documents during his presidency - including his numerous "pardons" - the big question is what did the president NOT know and when did he NOT know it? Also today - is the "peace candidate" taking us to war with Iran? Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Liberty Report discusses the legality of Biden's pardons due to the use of an auto-pen signature, questioning the validity of other actions taken under his administration. Trump also commented on the auto-pen signature, declaring the pardons void. Mike Johnson questioned Biden's mental capacity after Biden was unaware of signing an executive order.
The conversation shifts to US military operations against Yemen's Houthis, with Trump's past statements about avoiding bombing and resolving issues over the phone being contrasted with his current actions. Thomas Massie's research indicates that China and other foreign entities benefit most from US military activity in the Red Sea.
The discussion raises concerns about potential escalation with Iran, driven by figures like Mike Waltz, and the broader implications for international relations, including the involvement of China and Russia. The speakers emphasize the need for a successful presidency that avoids starting wars. They promote an upcoming conference.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Paul. How are you this morning?
Speaker 0: Doing fine. Thank you. Doing well. Wanted to start off with talking about something that that I couldn't I couldn't believe it. But it it to me, it's interesting.
It's sort of funny, and yet it's tragic. And yet it really teaches a lot of people a lesson. And that has to do with these pardons that these and, you know, that was a pretty generous eye. As I recall, Biden wasn't bashful about passing on. Most presidents so, you know, over the years, a lot of presidents used it sparingly.
But in the later years, they've been using them in larger numbers. I guess that's the more disobedience our governments get involved in. But, anyway, the pardons came up and they passed, and it's been several months now. But they just the news first news I heard was yesterday that all of a sudden, the pardons are ill illegal. What what do you mean?
How could they be illegal? And but Biden never signed them. He used a machine to do it. So it was an auto sign signature, and and that's supposed to be a no no. That's that really raises question.
So I find I find it rather ironic that this comes up. And maybe this is a climactic final nail in the coffin the end of the Biden administration when they realized that, you know, that they were doing things what what else occurred under his signature? Yeah. Who knows? Because I don't think his health was all that good, you know, last year or two.
So we it it it it is amazing that all those partners may be illegal. I'm anxious to see how this irons out because it's hard to believe. You you know, they they say there were some legitimate pardons in it. There might have been one or two that might have been really legitimate. He said, boy, thank goodness.
He he gave a part of them. Yeah. And is that guy or woman lose their part? You know? How does that happen?
I guess if it's well, who who knows? Because I don't think I I don't think this has come up before, but, it's sort of a sort of a, you know, a a verifying, you know, how clumsy things are in Washington. Who knows? This might have happened before, but it was discovered. So whoever it was in the justice department of who found this, I think needs a pat on the back because it it it it really if nothing else, it's an it's a it's it's it's an item that can go down in the history books as being one of the most absurd things you ever heard of where the president oh, I forgot to sign the pardons.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, it's it's it's a interesting question about technology. Obviously, the framers of the constitution couldn't have anticipated that we would have machines to sign these. Now the first president who ever used an auto sign to sign a law was president Obama. And from my understanding, that was an extension of the Patriot Act.
So maybe that'll be void too. But now, apparently, from what I read and I don't know. I actually I was looking through Jonathan Turley to see if he had a remark about it, and I didn't see anything. So I'm waiting to hear the definitive, in my opinion, view of it. But apparently, from what I've read, administrative things can be signed by an auto sign, which I guess the extension of Patriot Act would be considered administrative.
But pardons themselves need a wet signature, and I have someone who said that that I'm gonna put up to call wet signature. But it does raise a lot of questions about this. But the other thing, I think the larger implication, even if specifically in a very narrow sense, they're not gonna get away with canceling the pardons, and somewhere else, Fauci is breathing a sigh of relief if that happens. Nevertheless, it raises the issue, I think, and you you alluded to it in your in your opening, doctor Paul, how much of Biden's presidency was incapable of understanding? And that's a really big issue.
Constitutional issue. What if there was someone in office who really wasn't in office? You know? I mean, he didn't know anything that they were doing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It I for some reason, historically, this this may not get a lot of attention right now, but it will eventually. But maybe John a person like Jonathan Turley, they might just take a bite and and give us their opinion on it. But it just sorta happened. I just heard about it, you know, yesterday afternoon.
It was a weekend. So maybe we'll hear somebody else talking about it and and and what it what it really symbolizes, you know, where we are in the politics of of us, issuing pardons and running governments. And the the longer things go on, the more you get that's one thing that's good about, you you know, the, investigation now on the inefficiencies of government. All these things are popping up. And for for a while, there were so much stuff on USAID and thinking, oh, boy.
This is a ton of stuff. But that's just a little bit. Yeah. What's what's they find? But but people now are concerned.
Yes. The attention was drawn to some of these announcements, but, will there be a follow through? Will will the inefficiencies being will be pointed out not have any alter you know, any change in our the bottom line in the budget? And that's the that's the question that Thomas Massie's been asking, and it doesn't look too good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, someone else who noticed the auto signature thing was none other than president Trump. Now go to that first clip. This is the house Al Heads wrote it up. He put something on his truth social about it.
Trump declares Biden's auto pen signed pardons void. And this actually this did come out. I saw it a week or so ago on the Heritage Foundation's oversight project. They're the ones who disclosed it's it looked like every single document president Biden signed except for one was literally identical questioning whether he actually signed them and whether they could be deemed as valid. So president Trump noticed it.
And if you go to the next one, here's what he had to write in his own way of his own endearing way of writing. The pardons that sleepy Joe Biden gave the unselected committee of political thugs and many others are hereby declared void, vacant, and of no further force or effect because of the fact that we were done they were done by auto pen, he continued. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them, but more importantly, he did not know anything about them. That's an interesting point. The necessary pardoning documents were not explained to or approved by Biden.
He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime. Interesting he didn't want to say that they are subject to full investigations.
Speaker 0: You wonder how the process work. Did they have a secret committee of 10 people? What was said in your recommendation, or did one person, you know, have the control and the ability to approve this Yeah. And go ahead with somebody had to make the decisions.
Speaker 1: I mean, he spent a lot of time in Delaware. That's fine. I wish they'd spend all their time on vacation. But nevertheless, if he was in in Delaware on a beach somewhere and maybe blinking or someone back home was thinking, oh, you know, we knew how to get something done here, and they're running that machine. How do they know that he had the the express authority of the president to do anything like this?
It raises a huge question, I think. Even if it's just a tempest in a teapot, it might be just sort of a a right wing blowup or whatever. Nevertheless, it does, you know, raise some questions in the future. Now here's a funny thing that Trump, posted about it. If you go to that next one, there are the presidential portraits.
There's the first one, president Trump's first term, and it'd be the next one is an auto pen as Biden's presidency and then back to president Trump. Now here's an interesting aside, doctor Paul. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, he was talking about the apparent, mental decline of Biden. If you put this next one on, this this tends to bolster that idea. So Joe Rogan was asking, John, Mike Joe Rogan says, speaker Mike Johnson waited almost a year to meet Biden.
When he finally did, he asked him, why did you pause the LNG reports? Mike Johnson, he looks at me stunned and says, I didn't do that. Joe Rogan, so Johnson has a secretary print the executive order. Biden had never read it. Mike Johnson, he wasn't lying to me.
He genuinely didn't know what he had signed. If accurate, very concerning. He genuinely didn't know what he had signed.
Speaker 0: See, the size of government is so bad and so dangerous to us. But eventually, it might be our tip-off that we better get things under control. And there there's a lot of people in this country, but the but the, you know, the people resisting that, it's pretty pretty powerful messages out there, and they know how to stir up emotions. So we have a long way to go, but you first have to plant these seeds and expose and get the information out to get the people excited. But it's it's gonna be hard to reverse it.
And, you know, I got to thinking, why would that be? You know, they they cleaned out USAID. It isn't all cleared up. But, evidently, they're every place. That's why I don't like tinkering.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You know? Well, we have a bad program here. Now it looks like USAID might be, you know, eliminated. But if you get rid of 30% or 50%, if they end up and say, well, we took these 10 programs and we reduced them all by 32%. The seeds of destruction are still there.
They the the process is there and somebody will just rebuild it because they they went back and quoted several presidents who were waste, fraud, and abuse. They were all for that. They ran on that. Yeah. But but nothing happened.
This one, it looks like more will happen, but I'll tell you what, I'm gonna wait and see what the budget shows.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, let's move on to something that's a little bit more it's serious in a way, I guess. I don't know. Life and death serious. But if you skip one and go to the Pentagon, it says operations continue overnight against Yemen's Houthis.
Now this happened over the weekend. President Trump decided that it's a good time to start bombing Yemen. And you touched on this in your column that just came out this morning. You know, they didn't attack us. They didn't do anything to us, but he said he's gonna he he said he's gonna bomb them.
He bombed them prior. Someone said ten hours. What's interesting, though, again, as I said, they did not attack The United States. They had not planned on attacking The United States. But, nevertheless, he bombed them anyways saying that that Biden was too weak, and so he's gonna show strength.
But here's what's interesting. If you and I messed this up. If we can go to that second video clip. Now, Liam McCollum, as you remember, he's doing a lot of great work. He was one of our Rumpaul scholars, and he picked up this gem.
This is when and you mentioned this too in your column. This is one when president Trump was candidate Trump, and he's complaining about might wanna get your earpiece. He's complaining about Biden being too much of warmonger. He just pick up the phone and listen to what he says here.
Speaker 2: I I look at your policies. I see secure the borders, bring jobs I look at the Democrats and and many Republicans, and it's foreign war and foreign expansion. That's right. What what is that?
Speaker 0: I think it's just a failed mentality. It's crazy. You can you can solve problems over a telephone instead they start dropping bombs. I see, recently, they're dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don't have to do that.
You can talk in such a way where they respect you and they listen to you. Viktor Orban of Hungary, you know, the leader. They call him a strong
Speaker 1: cut that one. Now that's enough. So here's as a candidate. We don't need any dropping bombs. We can pick up the phone.
And now he goes ahead and starts dropping some bombs.
Speaker 0: You know, when we were looking for a a item of optimism, we would say, well, we'll we'll give him a pass to the first go run. He he wasn't he he didn't know that much about running the presidency. And he he hired a couple people that weren't really his friends
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And they were doing things behind his back. But he's had a lot of time. He had four years of president and four years now, and then he makes the statement. The statements are are good, but we're still doing the same thing. And it's and and I think it's obviously the the case of serving certain special interests in foreign policy that causes this to happen because it doesn't happen just for anybody.
You know? But but Yemen and Israel and Iran, that's a a mixed bag and it's a mess. And but it's that we we could use Trump's statement. Yeah. Well, we could sell it and sell it by telephone, but I I'd make sure it's long distance and they were paying the bill.
Speaker 1: Well, the whole origin of this, of course, is the Israeli slaughter of of of Palestinians in Gaza. At least 40 50,000 have been killed, most of them women and children. And Yemen said, well, we're not gonna stand for it. We're not gonna let Israeli ships pass. And so The United States, instead of saying, you guys need to cool it down a little bit, they said, oh, have have some more weapons.
Have some more money to buy weapons and kill more kids. And so Yemen decided that they would interdict, Israeli ships. So The US put themselves in the middle of it doing the bidding of Israel, really, and that's how we got to the situation. But, you know, a lot of people are saying now, and I had a lot of people respond to something I posted on x over the weekend. Well, we have to protect the shipping lanes.
What do they don't they realize? Well, first of all, the Yemen is not attacking anybody but Israel. But now that we started bombing them, they said we're gonna attack you too. Well, that's understandable. But Thomas Massey, always the coolest head in the class, he went and did a little bit of research.
And if you skip ahead to that next one, they say these are crucial shipping lanes. Well, Massey looked at it and he said, expressed in million in billions of dollars, the five countries and five corporations that will benefit most from US military activity to eliminate shipping disruptions caused by the Houthis near the Red Sea. China is number one. US isn't even in the top five. So these are the countries that benefit from The US clearing out the Red Sea.
So, basically, we're doing the heavy lifting not only for five foreign countries, but for five foreign corporations. Good fund on Massey's part. And if you go to the next one, here's how he explains it too. He said, regarding US activity in Yemen, I recently said to watch out for a new military engagement to compensate for the pullback in Ukraine. The military industrial complex demands about 50,000,000,000 a year from our government above and beyond what's necessary to defend our country.
So one two punch from Thomas Massey on this, I think.
Speaker 0: Well, that's for sure. Good for have good for him to be our watchdog there, but we need a lot more. And the opportunity is there. People are sick and tired of it, but it's not coming. The opposition is not not coming together.
That's why in in many ways, on economic policy, I don't you know, that you could think of all these things, cut the spending and balance the budget and don't have new programs and all this. But I work on the assumption without without any proof of it, but I believe that, you know, it all has to end. There is a liquidation period. You can't continue to print money. You can't continue to run up these deficits and get involved.
And, eventually, it ends and you can but but if you don't do it in a orderly manner, it ends it ends with a collision, you know, and a a real bad thing like a Zimbabwe or something. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, the real danger with Trump, and you alluded to it earlier, he surrounded himself with people who are not that much different than the John Bolton's and Mike Pompeo's of his previous administration. These people are neocons. Mike Waltz is a neocon. Marco Rubio is a neocon, essentially. Role so he's not getting anyone saying to him, you know, I know that Waltz is telling you that you should really be attacking Iran.
However, here's some information, mister president. He needs someone like a MacGregor in there. Look. You can't do this because of this. He actually would need someone like a Danny Davis, but Danny Davis was recently denied the appointment to the deputy director of national intelligence because he had written some things about what was going on in Gaza that, I guess, the administration can't stand.
But here's the real thing, doctor Paul. This is only partly about Yemen. Mike Waltz clearly wants us to go to war with Iran for the benefit of Israel, of course. So here's what he said. Yemen is only a part of it.
If you go to that next clip from DD Geopolitics, US national security adviser Mike Waltz, this is over the weekend, the next campaign in Yemen may target Iranian ships anchored off the Yemeni coast or Iranian military officers training Ansar Allah. So that's a clear threat to start shooting out, Iranian ships. Now the Iranians, you know, they're it's this is not, this is not Grenada. They've got some very sophisticated weapons, and we have a lot of vulnerable troops in the region. So I don't know what they're cooking up whether at the White House, but it doesn't look good.
Speaker 0: And then it it wouldn't take, too much speculation or thought about what what could happen. Could it expand? If it got bad enough there, would China do more to get involved? Or would Russia to get more in it? Maybe even India might get more involved.
We don't know. But it's not gonna be a simple, you know, well, we're gonna stop this ship. It's very dangerous. You know, sometimes I wonder about people's basic beliefs and convictions. And if if I had to write down and say, I watch politics a lot, and I've watched Trump for a long time.
And I know Trump, and I know his position. So I'm gonna write a paper explaining his foreign policy. You know what I would do? I would call I I I I would I would call you. No.
Tell me tell me what I'm supposed to write. Yeah. Because I don't know Yeah. What what it is. And yet, say, we well, we try we try to give a hint on that.
We mentioned the things when, you know, even in in this today. You know, he said a he had a great statement. Yeah. But the the discouragement thing, and he doesn't follow through that. The policy is not the same.
And you always emphasize the advisers you you have around you makes a big difference.
Speaker 1: People might say, oh, you just hate Trump. No. The opposite is true. We want him to have a successful presidency. The way to have a successful presidency is to not start wars.
He got it as candidate. I hope he doesn't forget it as president.
Speaker 0: That that's it. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: close out now and thank everyone for being with us, reminding you that this is the last week. The conference is on Saturday, less than a week away, doctor Paul. I don't know if you're prepared. I don't know if I'm prepared. But nevertheless, I will put a link in here.
We have a few tickets left. So if you wanna come down to sunny Lake Jackson did look at the weather, doctor Paul. It's gonna be clear and in the low seventies. If that holds, it's gonna be a beautiful day down here on the Gulf Coast or the coast of America. What do call it?
Gulf Of America. So, anyway, we'd love to see if you can make it out. Over to you, doctor Paul.
Speaker 0: Very good. I'm looking forward to it because I think when people come, I expect everybody to have a good time. And right now, the weather's good. Things are relatively calm politically, but all the things that we talk about have potential great problems ahead. And when we talk about Yemen, I mean, five years ago, I didn't even care that much about reading about it.
And now now look at it. It might be might be one of the biggest potential threats that we have. And if something breaks like that during our conference, I'm sure if we are there. We we will be talking about it and and speculating what's going on. But we are looking forward to our conference, and we hope to see many of you there.
I do wanna thank you very all very much for the support you give the the Campaign for Liberty. And, you'll return to the Campaign for Liberty and the soon. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm urging Republicans to support a new continuing resolution to maintain government funding at current levels until September. This means the supposed cuts from the Department of Government Efficiency are misleading, as spending will remain on par with the Biden and Obama Administrations.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
House Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing Republicans to pass yet another "continuing resolution" to keep funding government AT CURRENT LEVELS until September. That means that all the "cuts" by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are just smoke and mirrors, as the Trump Administration will be spending at the levels of the Biden and even Obama Administrations! Watch @RonPaul & @DanielLMcAdams below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American people are sick of the lies, cheating, and spending. We're seeing the climax of living beyond our means, fueled by the dollar's reserve currency status. The country is bankrupt, morally and financially, with moral bankruptcy leading to abuse of power. Some in Congress want to cut back spending, but there are loopholes.
Congress is not doing its job by passing appropriation bills. Trump is asking Republicans to vote for a bill that largely maintains current spending levels, with an additional $8 billion for military spending. They are always trying to kick the can down the road, they are not cutting spending. The whole system is massive, abused, and immoral. It's going to take some time to fix this issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Speaker 1: Happy Monday, doctor Paul. How are you today?
Speaker 0: I'm doing well. Good. It's pretty and raring to go.
Speaker 1: Let's do it.
Speaker 0: But we wanna look at the success or failure or where are we on cutting spending. Yeah. I think we have a message to follow from the last election. I think the American people are sick and tired of the spending and the lying and the cheating. And right right now though, they're finding out what an embedded bureaucracy is to cheat and lie and steal the people's money and do it in the name of of goodness and democracy and taking care of people and being humanitarians.
That's their excuse for this. But I see what's happening right now as as a climactic ending to a point in our history that we were fortunate to have, an opportunity to live beyond our means, you know, power, minerals, military, the whole works, and, it it lived beyond our main. The the currency having the reserve currency in the world gives you license to steal by just printing money. In other countries, as long as they get their little fair share, they they go along with it. But I think I think this is not a a an ordinary downturn.
I think I think this is highlighting a significant turn and and a a a forced admission that our country is bankrupt. And I used to say, oh, they're bankrupt morally. They're bankrupt financially. I've decided that the moral moral bankruptcy is the worst because the moral bankruptcy leads to doing whatever they want when they have political power. But right now, the the congress, you know, we have some people there with the Musk and Trump, and I think they're very sincere to what come cut back.
But when you look between the lines, you wonder, why are they doing some of these things? You know? What what do you do in this place? You know, you're supposed to be cutting and there's some loopholes. And if you wanna read somebody that I've read and knew and worked with in the congress, David Stockman
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: He know he knows where the loopholes are. And he reveals this, and he talks he has an article about rescission as
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: The congress about the constitution said that you can, you know, use rescission and cancel out and and cancel out what you can do. You know, you you should congress has to do it regardless of of what how much resistance there is. And I don't particularly like that interpretation. But but anyway, they're going through the the the motion of trying to cut. And I think I mean, I just wonder what their deep down feeling is because they had a desire.
Obviously, Musk had strong desires, and he's converted a lot of the wishy washy conservatives to his side. And I just wonder what they're thinking now. I I wonder if they think, boy, I didn't know what we were getting into. This is almost like an impossible task, and I've always leaned toward that point that this correction would come. There is a going to be a liquidation of the malinvestment of all the debt because it cannot be sustained, And the the liquidation will come not in the form of sanity in getting the right people, not that I'm against that.
People not need to know what's going on, but that eventually the people will refuse to accept the biting the bullet and cutting back, and it will lead to what the market demands, and that's a correction. And I think we're seeing that and people's standard of living is going down. They when's the recession gonna start? I bet you could find a fair number of people in this country right now who are suffering from the recession depression. And I think it's unfortunately gonna get a lot worse, but an opportunity to present our case for saying, maybe this could have been preventable.
I happen to believe it could be, but with a great deal of difficulty and a change in moral stature of the people in this country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, doctor Bull. On the one hand, people are excited to see the rot that's been exposed by Doge and Musk's efforts. They're shocked to see the spending. They're shocked to see the foreign aid. They're shocked to see the places that this money is going, the things that it's doing.
They're shocked to see 300 year old people getting social security checks. Right? But the reality is unless you cut spending, a lot of this is just showmanship, it's just smoke and mirrors. So the real issue is the money that's been appropriated, how can you not spend it? Because when congress appropriates it according to the 1974 law, and we'll talk about it in a minute, it has to be spent.
And so now we have congress I'll put on this first one. We have congress now has not done its job. It's not passed the appropriations bills. And so we have speaker Johnson and president Trump, we have to say, pushing for a continuing resolution. Here's the headline of the article that we're talking about.
No dissent. Trump asks all Republicans to give us a few months and approve the GOP continuing resolution. So Trump on Saturday implored all Republicans to vote on a 99 page spending bill. And here's the key part, doctor Paul, that would keep government funded through September as a March deadline approaches. It's like basically, we've been through this so many times, Doctor.
Paul, Oh, government's gonna shut down. We've got to pass this. And it's gonna go to the eleventh hour, fifty nine minute, fifty nine second, and they're gonna pass it. So here's the part about it that belies the thought that we're gonna cut spending. Go to the next one, because this is the bill largely maintains current spending levels.
Current spending levels, which are from the Biden administration with an additional $8,000,000,000 for military spending. So they're actually increasing military spending in this bill. Johnson is setting up the bill for a vote on Tuesday tomorrow, despite a lack of buy in from Democrats, essentially daring them to vote against it and risk a shutdown. Now who better than Thomas Massey to explain to us the charade of this? Now there's a bonus clip.
I was barely able to get it up because x has been down all morning, but here's Massey. He put this out this morning. The argument for a CR now CR is a continuing resolution. That's the bill that they're going to pass to keep spending. The argument for CR in September of twenty four was to fight in December of twenty four after the election.
The argument for CR in December 24 was to fight in March 25 after the inauguration. The argument for CR in March 25 is to fight in September 25 because we're not ready yet. It makes a very good point. They're always trying to kick this can down the road, doctor Paul. They're not cutting spending.
That makes a charade of all the efforts of Doge.
Speaker 0: You know, there's so many things that puts pressure on politicians to spend the money and spend money that they don't really have, and they have to look like they're taking care of everybody. But there was a new one in this one, and that is they they had leftover money in their American loans. I don't know whether this was with COVID or some welfare state. So they said, well, we're running out of people to give money to. So we're gonna loan all this money to 11 year olds.
Yes. So they're just out there passing out money. So the the whole system, it is so massive and so abused and so immoral. That's why I've been a pessimist about saying that I expect, you know, in six months, this thing's gonna be straightened out. But in six months, you know, the the recession, depression will be here.
And Trump, unfortunately, you know, he has his problems, but he cannot be blamed for fifty years of the malinvestment that's been going on on a monetary system going on. So we're we're in for some big trouble. So this one effort of congress trying to, you know, send send these bills back and the president just not not spend the money and and hold off. People don't like that. We're we're we tell you to spend the money, spend the money, which I I'd like to, you know, challenge that because I think that's that's pretty stupid.
But the constitution does give the congress a lot of authority over spending.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately,
Speaker 0: they haven't been good protectors of that principle because they they have yielded to the giveaways and they paw and they and all the lobbyists coming in, you know, that we've talked about so much. So they get together, and all of a sudden, it's a political game. How do I stay in office? From the very beginning, the first day a new member comes in, I said, well, how this is how you stay in. You need to be on this committee, and you have to do this.
You have to raise money. It's it's a money's game, and it must be so seductive that there's so few, you know, Thomas Massie's out there that to resist the temptation to join a gang like that. And in many ways, though, it reflects the people's attitude. When they get upset, you know, they will they will wake up, and that's what's happening. I I hope we can just keep this awakening going for a while where they get a grasp of what the alternative is to the system we've been living with.
Speaker 1: And we've highlighted on this show the fact that Doge is popular. People are happy with cutting government. They want it to happen. Unfortunately, Trump is obviously, he's not convinced. Now here's the next one.
This is the Trump part, and, you know, we we have to criticize them when he deserves it. And on this, he does in a way. Trump asked the GOP to come together. The house and senate have put together under the circumstances a very good funding bill. Trump wrote on truth social asking all Republicans to please vote yes on it.
I'm asking you to give us a few months to get us through to September so we continue to put the country's financial house in order. Doctor Paul, you often use the analogy of a drug addict. That almost sounds like someone who needs a fix. We need it just till September, just till September. Just give us another hit.
And now here's the real problem. Go to the next one. As Bloomberg notes, unlike previous shutdowns, this one would impact all discretionary spending, and I've highlighted this, since none of the 12 appropriations bills have been signed into law. Congress has not done its job. It has not followed regular order.
The only thing it's responsible for doing is passing these appropriations bills and funding government. It hasn't done that. It's funded unlimited spending on Ukraine, Eight Million bills praising Israel, everything except their actual job to do. And so while Trump deserves some blame for wanting this to go through, the blame really should squarely rest on congress's shoulders. Speaker Johnson is doing a terrible job, in my opinion, in doing the only thing that he's really supposed to do, which is funding the government in an appropriate level.
Speaker 0: Don't you think they use the word discretionary overly so much? Because, you know, if it's discretionary, nondiscretionary, you can't touch it. But why why did well, I know why they do it, but it's such a shame that they divide it up like, oh, if if we have ABC that takes gives out freebies to 80% of the population, oh, that's nondiscretionary. We can't touch that. And politically speaking, it's generally true.
You know, it works so well. And one party does it much more than the other party. They just say, oh, they're gonna take it away. And and neither parties is going to say, well, we have to do it. But I and I would I would like to see them just get into the discussion of you know, the question is, if we didn't have Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps, maybe we wouldn't have food stamps for the wealthy and the military industrial complex and that everybody would suffer.
But there's no proof to that. The proof of it is is when you overspend and the people like it, that you finally destroy the system. And the results and the recovery is much worse than biting the bull and say, you know, you know, we have to live within people do it all the time. You know, there's still probably a very large number of American people who have jobs that never can keep up with the cost of living, and they have to cut cut the spinning off, but but not not not government. You know?
You go and and and you can't have any money left over. That's a crime. You know? That's a crime. They certainly wouldn't save it, and they and they don't pay down debt either.
Have you noticed that? Yeah. They never the debt never shrinks.
Speaker 1: No. And now you mentioned our friend David Stockman, who's on the board of our institute, by the way. Now he's writing in the Brownstone Institute today, an excellent article. We've talked about Senator Paul, who had lunch with Elon Musk last week and told him about here's how we can fix the problem. Very important, skipping ahead to its precision time.
This is an article that came out this morning from the Brownstone Institute we reprinted at Ron Paul Institute. David's talking to saying, the politicians who run the GOP on Capitol Hill are about to rug pull Elon Musk and his patron in the Oval Office big time. That is the so called quote clean CR that speaker Johnson is apparently cooking up. And I highlighted this will ratify the entirety of the runaway spending in the last Biden budget, thereby canceling every single dime that DOGE has saved. Go to the next one.
This will explain the rescission problem. For example, the appropriations authority for every one of the hundreds, if not thousands of idiotic foreign aid contracts that DOGE has exposed and canceled, must by law be recycled and re spent on another contract. That's what's so important. As David Stockman writes, And therefore spent on projects perhaps only slightly less stupid. Now here's the law, go to the next one.
We have talked about it, it's worth bringing up again. We are referring to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the passel of uniparty appointed federal district judges waiting to pounce in favor of lawsuits claiming the funds are being illegally withheld by the executive. Now here is what Stockman is proposing and it's online with in line with what senator Paul has pointed out. To wit, as Elon Musk apparently discovered earlier this week, the congressional rescission tool is a pretty good workaround to unspend the money that's already been appropriated. This method of causing existing spending authority does not require congressional, does require, sorry, congressional approval within forty five days, but rescissions are subject to an up or down vote and no filibuster in the Senate.
And this is what Stockman proposes. So what the DOGE need team needs to do right now is bundle up a massive pile of rescissions, send them to Capitol Hill to be voted on as a precondition to consideration of the next CR. And he's saying, hold that CR hostage, pass these rescissions, get rid of this previous spending before we even start talking about the CR. I think that's a great proposal, Doctor. Paul.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I do too. And let's hope it goes through and it does some good, but you know, Rubio now slashes 83% of USAID and he's pleased with what's happening, but we don't know whether that's gonna go through. I mean, there's gonna be so many lawsuits made in this And then there's gonna be all types of calamities that are gonna occur. Then there's gonna be the terror, you know, the the the heartbreaking stories of of one individual that suffer. They didn't get something given to him by the government.
And, the people will be, you know, motivated to say, why are they doing this? Why are they doing that? Why are why are they doing it? Well, why did they start it is the bigger question because it's a free lunch. Yeah.
You know, the first first time I got involved in saying anything political was in the early seventies. That was when the Libertarian Party was started. And they popularized us as a a slogan that said, a. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I keep thinking of that.
And yet that's what we've worked on for all these years that there is a free lunch out there and people still believe it and that you don't have to give it up. You just have to get in front of the line. Yeah. And that's why what do we do? The one of the biggest businesses that used to be your neighbors or some of these people up in Washington.
The lobbyists, go out.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: They they make a couple bucks. So that's that is that is what runs it, and that means it's flexible. So there's nothing very rigid about the constitution, you know, holding the feet to the fire and say, you can't do this. And yet now they're barely holding on to say that we wanna we wanna change our mind and they're meeting great resistance. So that's how they're successful in saying that they can have a decision and cancel out the preposterous spending because why can't they use the argument?
How can you force us to spend money? We have no money in the bank. Well, run the printing presses. It's so absurd.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. Well, I'm gonna close out Doctor. Paul, and I would encourage people, we don't do it very often, but contact your representative or your Senator and tell them we don't want the CR to pass without the rescission, without cutting the money. We've already identified, as Doctor. Paul points out, we've already identified 85% of the AID programs are garbage.
But even if they cancel all the programs, they're gonna have to spend the money for them. Unless this rescission goes through, cut all this spending out, and then let's look for an actual clean CR that doesn't spend to the Obama levels. I wanna thank everyone for watching and I'm gonna turn it over to Doctor. Paul to close out the show.
Speaker 0: Very good. And you know, in spite of the reality of what we're facing and the difficulty in coming back, it's very, very important to get out on the table. And Daniel mentioned in his opening statement that who would ever imagine the corruption and some of the things they're spending on it. Well, a lot of us could imagine it, but it's still astounding on what what some of these appropriations that you think the American people would be for it. And I think this is why this last election was significant.
In a chance, they did vote, you know, to try to get their house in order. But when it comes to getting hitting at home, there has to be exemption. Anything they get, you can't cut that. So that opens up the door. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security on down.
But when you do that, if you wanna preserve a principle, taking care of the children and the indigent and and give them something to eat and where to live, What you do is you set the principle of taking from one group and give it to another. And guess who does it, really knows how to do that. And that's these big lobbyists like the military industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industry. All these people know that principle, but it's the same principle. That's why the principle that transfer of wealth by government force from one group to another, no matter how humanitarian it sounds, it shouldn't be permitted.
And the constitution wasn't meant to be set up as a guideline to how you how you distribute wealth in a country. What the what the main purpose of the constitution was to protect liberty and allow the people to take care of themselves. And that's what this fight is all about. And, it's just starting and it has to be resolved because it won't continue. And I think that's why we're gonna see a lot of fireworks in the future.
I just just hope there is fourth of July fireworks, not the other kind of fireworks that happen. I wanna thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report. Please come back soon.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
More threats of sanctions on Russia? President Trump risks making Biden's failed war into his own failed war. Just get out of this already! https://t.co/ZmpGE1n3Hx
Video Transcript AI Summary
He's trying to broker peace, but our engagement caused this war. We can't fix it with more engagement. Trump wanted a mineral deal, but it's unclear why he's pushing it.
He initially considered removing sanctions on Russia, but after Russia's robust bombing campaign, he proposed large-scale sanctions and tariffs until a ceasefire.
It's a proxy war, and it's best to admit our side has lost and wind down. Sanctions only strengthen Russia and weaken the West. Trump's back-and-forth is setting him up for a defeat that could have been blamed on Biden. He should walk away and disengage, it's Biden's war. More sanctions are ridiculous, they've all failed. Russia's fine, and we failed on the battlefield. It's like more COVID boosters, they don't work, get out of this already.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He wants to be in between brokering. He wants to be at the table making peace between the two. And he's doing that by not dis dis dis disengaging us, which is what we need to do, because the whole war came about because of our engagement, the overthrow of the government in '14, before that the overthrow of the Ukrainian government during the Orange Revolution in the early two thousands. This whole problem was caused by our engagement, so therefore we cannot get out of it by further engagement. You can't drink to get sober.
It doesn't work that way. And so Trump wanted to do this mineral deal, which frankly nobody understands. It doesn't make any sense. He's not gonna get the minerals. I don't know why he's pushing it other than, as you say, to keep us engaged, keep us with the toehold in there.
It doesn't make any sense. So what happened is, basically maybe it's this morning, maybe it was yesterday, he was talking about, getting together, getting rid of sanctions on Russia, etcetera, etcetera. And then this morning, he got up and said the opposite. And if we can go to that next clip, this is, interestingly enough, the euro hedge, which is usually has a lot of integrity. They changed their headline on me.
So after I sent it to you, so I can't use the headline, they they put in some goofy Bloomberg stuff, which I do not believe is accurate. But nevertheless, what happened this morning is well, last night, as we know, Russia is is at war with Ukraine, is at a special military operation, and they did a very, very robust bombing campaign against Ukraine. That's kind of what you do in a war, and so that's what they did last night. They've been doing it for three years, but something about it set Trump off. He went to his truth social, and he was furious.
He said, based on the fact that Russia is absolutely pounding Ukraine in the battlefield right now, I'm strongly considering large scale banking, sanctions, sanctions, and tariffs on Russia until a cease file cease fire and final settlement on peace is reached. And Alex Cristoforo, who was one half of the indispensable Durand team, again summed it up perfectly if you go to that next one. Now he commented on what Trump said this morning about sanctions on Russia by saying, Given the fact that US Officials are now openly admitting that they are in a proxy war with Russia and Ukraine, and that refers to Rubio, which he said yesterday, the very first time an American official said that. So given the fact that America admits that it's a proxy war, Alex goes on to say, it would be best for the Trump White House to simply admit that its proxy has lost and wind this thing down. Sanctions only strengthen Russia and weaken the collective West, and we've seen that subjectively true over the last three years.
Alex continues, Trump's art of the deal back and forth with Ukraine is only setting up his administration for a military defeat, a defeat that could have been attributed to Biden and company, but now runs the risk of being attributed to Trump. And this truth post, on the heels of a closing Kursk cauldron, is a weak and panicked look. I would say, well said, Alex. Trump, you can walk away from this. It's Biden's war.
It's not yours. Wash your hands like Pontius Pilate and run as fast as you can away from it. Not that he's listening to me, Chris, but that's what I'd say if he asked me.
Speaker 1: I agree. And when I read more sanctions, I'm thinking to myself, how ridiculous. I mean, I remember when the all the sanctions were put on. Remember the all The US companies were pulling out of Russia. There were Ukraine flags everywhere.
I remember going to the airport, seeing signs how we stand with Ukraine. And I believe that Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world by far. I I think I'm right about that. I I remember seeing a graph, and nobody's even close, and it all failed. All the sanctions failed.
Russia's fine. They have plenty of big friends. They we failed on a battlefield. All the 300,000,000,000 failed. All the weapons that NATO pumped in failed.
So this is when I hear Trump saying more sanctions, I'm I'm I'm hearing more COVID boosters. They don't work. Keep taking more of them. It's it's embarrassing. Just get out of this already.
Don't string it along. You don't have to look tough. You know, sometimes the tough guy is the one who knows that he's beat, and he doesn't have to be the one that's beat. You could blame all this on Biden. Just get out of it and, you know, and and stop with the threats.
I think that's enough.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Hope @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk can correct this act of Biden treachery!
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
On the surface, who doesn't want a $5,000 check? But will it mean greater future inflation -- like the Covid checks? https://t.co/0s2QEnm8EN
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're discussing a proposal where Trump and Musk would send US taxpayers $5,000 checks, funded by savings from government efficiency. The idea is to save $2 trillion and return a portion to households.
While it sounds good to give money back to the people, I think it's gimmicky. Cutting taxes would be a better approach. Savings from cutting back on spending should reduce the budget, interest rates, and debt.
Perhaps Musk is trying to create a sense of ownership in the cutting process. During COVID, stimulus checks ended up costing more through inflation. Printing more money for these checks invites further inflation, negating any benefit. People are upset because they aren't getting honest answers about debt and the Fed's role in monetizing it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is, Zero Heads wrote it up. Trump and Musk to discuss sending US taxpayers $5,000 checks using DOGE savings. Billionaire Elon Musk said on February 18 that he will discuss with president Donald Trump a proposal to send US taxpayers rebate checks representing a portion of the money saved by the Department of Government Efficiency. You know, the idea is that they will save a bunch of money, and they will take a portion of that money that they've saved. Now the idea is we'll save $2,000,000,000,000.
We'll take a portion of that and give it back to each household taxpayer household, and that dividend should be around $5,000 per household. That's the idea.
Speaker 1: I'm I in a way, disappointed. It's it's too much gimmickry in this. I I don't understand it. So, the the proposal is that Trump and Mao says that we're saving so much money, we ought to give it back to the people, which sounds very good. So just just cut taxes, you know, and let them keep it.
But, no, they want, issued the checks and, taxpayers, you know, $5,000 of checks. And because they're gonna save so much more, they're not even gonna use up all the saving. But to count the savings that they might get from, cutting back, you know, by by firing a few people, It it's not it's not an iron stone, you know, the how many how many court arguments are gonna be? How many court cases will there be? So there's a lot to be heard, but I I don't see this as enhancing what have been already contributed to us, and that is exposure, audit, how horrible this is.
And the people are really upset about this, and it it represents a system of a bankruptcy. But I don't see this emphasizing, you know, that particular point. And actually, if you're gonna save umpteen billions of dollars on spending, the the budget well, the spending has to go down. The interest rates have to go down payment. And then the debt has the deficit and and the debt that exists has to go down.
And that's that's a a big undertaking. I don't see how this will add to it, but there's the the two guys working on this are a lot richer than we are. So maybe they know something we don't know.
Speaker 0: But, you know, I mean, I don't think that I don't wanna speak for you, but I don't think that we are absolutely thinking it's the worst idea in the world, you know, this whole this whole idea. It it's this seems, as you said, gimmicky. Maybe what Musk is trying to do is to create a sense of being stakeholders in the cutting process. And I think you sort of alluded to that when you started out by saying this, that we all feel like some sort of ownership in this process of cutting government. So if that's a psychological, you know, benefit of doing it, maybe it's not a terrible idea to do to give us all sort of, okay.
Well, we're cutting government, and you're you're benefiting from it in a way. You know? I I don't I don't know. If you remember back during COVID when we had the stimulus checks that they were sending out now Thomas Massey, good friend of ours, board member of our Ron Paul Institute, he made and I don't have it in front of me. I wish I had I had cut it, but I didn't.
But he made a great calculation about how this, quote, unquote, stimulus money that you're gonna get is actually gonna cost you more than you'll have in your pocket to spend through inflation, through special interest getting more than you're getting in all these number of things. So and and it actually played out exactly like he said, and I don't have it in front of me, but he made that good point. My guess is that he will be similarly skeptical about this money.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a that's that's a good point because let's say they get their way and next week they're gonna start it. They don't have money in the bank. So if they're gonna say if they're gonna live up to their promises and and they have to start sending these checks out, they have to print the money
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Which invites more inflation. Yeah. And the prices go up and people well, I'm not any better off.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You'll you'll get your 5,000, but then eggs will quadruple. And you'll
Speaker 1: like Yeah. And and that's why people are really upset and they're not getting the honest answers about why it comes about. It's debt and the Fed monetizing that debt.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
The US Should Not Take Over Gaza https://t.co/YXBDtom6k2
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's proposal to take over Gaza and relocate Palestinians has sparked controversy. Senator Paul opposes the plan, viewing it as contrary to "America First" principles. Senator Graham also expressed skepticism, highlighting the unpopularity of such a move amongst Americans. Public opinion polls reveal widespread opposition to increased military aid to foreign countries. This proposal is criticized for its potential to strain US relations with Saudi Arabia, jeopardizing the petrodollar system and the dollar's global reserve status. The resulting economic crisis could necessitate severe cuts in spending and potentially threaten civil liberties. A US occupation of Gaza also risks increased anti-American sentiment and terror attacks. Instead of this costly and risky venture, focusing on withdrawing from unnecessary military commitments and promoting peaceful relations through free trade would be a more effective and fiscally responsible approach.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the weekly report. The US should not take over Gaza. This week, President Trump upended US Middle East policy by announcing that The United States would take over war ravaged Gaza and turn it into the Riviera Of The Middle East. President Trump also said the Palestinians living in Gaza would be temporarily relocated to Jordan or Egypt. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul came out strongly against the proposal.
Senator Paul pointed out that the plan contradicted the American people's vote for America First. What was surprising was that South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham expressed skepticism about sending Americans to take over Gaza. This may be the first time in Senator Graham's political career that he has opposed sending US troops abroad. Senator Graham is correct that most South Carolinians are not excited about sending Americans or US tax dollars to take over Gaza. Neither are most Americans.
In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans oppose providing military aid to Israel or other countries. One of the best comments was made by Libertarian scholar and podcaster Tom Woods. He suggested that Trump Gaza's proposal is the type of wasteful overseas spending that Doge should be working to eliminate. Trump's plan has also been criticized by the government of Saudi Arabia. This could mean that if President Trump follows through with this proposal, it will further push Saudi Arabia away from The United States and toward a BRIC alliance.
Some of the BRIC nations want to challenge the dollar's world reserve currency status. One of the foundations of the dollar's world reserve currency status is the petrodollar. This arose from the deal Henrik Hisinger negotiated with Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi's agreed to use dollars for oil trade in exchange for US support for the Saudi regime. Recently, Saudi Arabia has given signs that it will be willing to use other currencies such as the Chinese Renminbi for its oil trade. The loss of the dollar's world reserve currency status would cause a major US economic crisis.
It would force the government to make massive cuts in warfare and welfare spending and would lead to violence and a government crackdown on our liberty. US ownership of Gaza accompanied by forcible relocation of Palestinians would cause increased resentment of The United States. This could result in increased terror attacks against The US. Even if a long term US occupation of Gaza went 100% according to plan, the US government, which has an over $36,000,000,000,000 and growing debt, cannot afford another open ended overseas military commitment. Instead, President Trump should follow through on his campaign rhetoric about withdrawing from unnecessary military commitments.
This, not tariffs, will help make America more competitive on the international economy. The best thing The United States can do to rebuild Gaza and promote peace in The Middle East is to stop funding Israel's occupation and blockade of Gaza. Instead, The US should work toward peaceful relations backed by free trade with Israel and its neighbors. Thanks for listening.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just saw that the Ukrainian NGO "TEXTY," linked to USAID and the State Department, has published an "enemies list" featuring many notable Americans like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and Tucker Carlson. This raises the question of whether Americans should be compelled to fund foreign NGOs that target their own citizens. Additionally, there was a report about a US military operation in Gaza resulting in the deaths of nearly 300 civilians. Rep. Thomas Massie also revealed insights into AIPAC's influence in Congress.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
The USAID and State Department-affiliated Ukrainian NGO "TEXTY" has just released an "enemies list" of hundreds of prominent Americans, including Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, the Ron Paul Institute, Tucker Carlson, and many more. Should Americans be forced to pay money to fund foreign NGOs that threaten American citizens? Also today: The US military participated in a deadly Gaza raid that killed nearly 300 civilians. Finally: Rep. Thomas Massie spills the beans on AIPAC's influence on the Hill. Watch below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
Good morning, Daniel. We’ve got a lot to cover today. A Ukrainian organization, Texty, funded by the US government, has published a list of Americans deemed enemies for opposing increased aid to Ukraine. This list includes many of our friends and colleagues, highlighting the troubling misuse of US funds. Furthermore, the US participated in an Israeli raid that killed over 270 Palestinians, raising serious questions about US authority and the proportionality of the response. Congress should demand answers about both these incidents. Thomas Massie’s claim that every Republican has an AIPAC “babysitter” influencing their votes reveals the extent of foreign lobbying. Public opinion is shifting against sending weapons to Israel, yet Congress remains unresponsive. Despite the bleak outlook, we remain hopeful and invite you to our Liberty Platform event on October 31st in Dulles, Virginia. We need to advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy and bring our troops home.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our cohost. Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Speaker 1: Good morning, doctor Paul. How are you?
Speaker 0: Doing well. Doing well.
Speaker 1: Good. Good.
Speaker 0: And we're gonna try to repair a few problems in the world.
Speaker 1: Oh, we'll see.
Speaker 0: Endless job. Yeah. You know, I always say when you're involved in top politics and it's hard work, you have to travel to and you get a row galley and the other you should try to have a little fun even though it's not. But there are some days it's hard to forget about the monstrosities. Well, I wouldn't cut a call day the top monstrosity, but it sure doesn't lend much to say it.
Common sense is coming to the people. The governments are waking up and this sort of thing. There's still a lot of problems. Let's start off by talking about something. It was a this thing, you know, I have in front of me.
It says featured article by Daniel McAdams. Oh, oh, oh, oh. So this is your real expertise here as usual. But it it has to do with a fact
Speaker 1: of
Speaker 0: of a journalistic agency, data journalistic agency, which is, somebody gonna watch out and make sure that we and others and I think, this report that we have here actually named, the Liberty Committee and, the Institute and and Ron Paul and Rand Paul and a lot of other friends, a lot of people saying these aren't these aren't friends, you know, to Israel and Ukraine. Yeah. Ukraine. Yeah. And, they're they're not voting for the weapons and they're not voting for the money and, and
Speaker 1: and
Speaker 0: they they should be watched. But there were a lot of people on the list. It's sort of it's sort of a modified thing of canceling people. You know? We have heard a lot about that, but they they didn't wanna they didn't do this to honor.
If you're on the list, they were honoring the people on the list. They say, look out for these guys. We gotta do something with them. They're not voting out for enough money, and they don't support They don't Israel as well.
Speaker 1: Ukraine. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They don't support the the Ukrainians and if you're on the list, some people might think you're anti Russian or something like that. So, what, what do you think is gonna come of this? Is this gonna be a big story, in the news this weekend?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a it's a big thing that came out this report came out, at the end of the week on Friday last week. If we can put that first clip up. So this is, this organization is called Texty. And the thing that's important about it, doctor Paul, a couple of things. First of all, they put out this list, and this list contains 391 individuals and 76 organizations, including politicians, political movements and groups, media and journalists, experts and think tanks.
These are the people on their hate list, on their enemies list, and it's a Ukrainian organization that put this out. And if you it's called, from Trumpist to communists, the forces in The US impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it. Go to the next clip. Here's a little bit of more about it from a piece that I wrote when it first came out. The US government affiliated Ukrainian web publication data journalism agency has just released a report attacking hundreds of prominent American individuals and organizations as enemies for not supporting sending more US money and weapons to Ukraine.
So the the and actually go to the next one. Now here it's all these bubbles of related people who are their enemies, and it's pretty fascinating. The ones the bigger ones, the more important bad guys have their names shown. The biggest one is Donald Trump's name, but you see Tucker Carlson's name is big. You see Ron Paul is there.
In fact, I'm just up from Ron Paul, but I'm not important enough, so I don't get to have my name prominently displayed, which makes me happy. But it's kinda like you said, doctor Paul. I look at this. Listen. All of our friends are there.
Max Blumenthal is there. Angela McArdle, we just saw her a while ago. Anya Powerpil is there. Tucker Carlson, Colonel Doug McGregor. We would think of this as a good oh, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan.
We would think of this as a good guy list, but in fact, these are what the Ukrainians, this organization believes are bad guys. And the thing about actually, if you go to the next one, I did a feature on their tablet. I am listed in as an expert, which I'm happy to know. But also the Ron Paul Institute is on their hate list. So the thing that's important about this, doctor Paul, I think, is that this organization, Texty, is affiliated with United States government, USAID and the state department.
So we are getting robbed to give money to Ukraine, and Ukraine uses some of that money, to make hate lists in in in in enemies lists of Americans.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's that's right. You know, when this first came out, you had a little bit of a concern, and I thought, well, yeah, Tim must be worried worried about putting putting my name and his name up on the list. But, no, he sort of thought we'd be excluded. We we there are a lot of friends on this list. Yeah.
And, there's a and and that in a way, just the way we look at that and what's going on and the way that how how twisted this is makes it difficult for the politics of it all to work out to. And pay it when you're in office, it's a little bit different than when you're trying to educate people in the line of a a non interventions foreign policy because that's what we see the lens of non intervention, which in in many ways philosophically is a lot easier than trying to figure out the politics of all this. You know, politics is power and money and a lot of other things and wheeling and dealing. But if if you pick a principle and the founders worked for more in this manner because their advice was very strong. Stay out of the entangling alliances and don't get messed up with Europe.
Don't and and they explicitly said, oh, but well, maybe my memory isn't right. I don't think they explicitly said, don't join NATO with United Nations. Yeah. Anyway, we're involved, and and that's that's what they're doing. And then then the mixture of taking the money, you know, from the American people, and get get given it to to them, and then they turn around and lobby with that money.
You know? And and they make that effort. It will teach them a lesson. So, and some people think all foreign aid is going to help, you know, but but they they try to play both sides. You we know where most of the money is you know, but they also say, but we want to help the Palestinian, so we're gonna send them some food.
And, and and that that turns almost into a farce. You know, it's it's politics along because I I think I've complained about that for years that when you when you have these countries that are fighting among themselves, you send them money or whoever amount money and food, whoever is the most powerful gets hold of it. It doesn't really help the people who suffer the most. And there's a lot of people suffering over there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The thing is that I I would I would wonder because there are dozens of members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate that are on this list, this enemies list. I mean, I if I were a member if I were a member of US Congress, I would go down to the floor and I would demand a clarification from the US government, from the state department, from USAID. I would hold it up and say, I'm Jim Jordan. I'm on this hate list of a Ukrainian group that gets our money.
I would like an exclamate, an explanation of what is US policy. What is our policy toward Ukraine? Is it okay for them to make hate lists of prominent Americans? Is that is that okay? And in fact, now this isn't what they call the kill list, but there is another Ukrainian list called the kill list.
And several journalists that were on that list have been killed, including Daria Dugina in Russia. And what's concerning about that list is that people that we know are on, including Rand Paul, including many others. So it's a dangerous thing. These people are playing a dangerous game, and I don't understand why members, they should be down on the floor. And here is some here's some more evidence of their of their connection to the US government.
Put on this next clip. This is Anatoli Bondarenko, and he is prominently on a US government website. He is the founder of texti.org, a cofounder of texti.org, and here he is lecturing at a place called Tech Camp. Well, what is Tech Camp? Tech Camp is a project of the United States Department of State.
He was a speaker in this state department program. Yet more evidence if you go to the next one of the organization's involvement with the US government. This is a project called TOPA's, USAID and UK funded transparency and accountability in public administration. If you go to the next one, now you can see this is, their implementing partners. And one of those implementing partners, you can see toward the bottom, is none other than the data journalism agency, Texty.
So they are listed on the US government website as a partner, yet this partner to the US government is attacking Americans, prominent Americans in The US. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And when you mentioned about going, you you know, to to the congress and asking some question, and one thought crossed my mind in the last several days. I never did it when I was in congress, but, the principal was always there and should be there. So when they're coming up and they want to authorize, you know, money for which war today, but more more money and weapons and and policy, I would like to stand up, and this is a privileged motion. I think they have to recognize you say, mister speaker, madam speaker, point of order. Explain to me where do you get the money and where do you get the authority?
And if if somebody did that each time, you know, of course, that figure out something else that might one work. But but it doesn't take them long dismiss the people who they don't want to hear from. That's really the point. That's what is that's when it's really getting bad is making it authentic and so called within the rules. And, of course, the way we see it, not much of what the Congress does is within the rule.
They just bend the rules and then they have all these coalitions and bipartisanship. And here, if they want to get more money to a favorite lobbyist, they do that and they're gonna feed poor people in some country. And all of a sudden, money goes to to to the lobbying groups. So it it's a it's what people want and what they understand and what they have been taught and what our government should be. And too many people accept the idea that, we just have to have better manager.
That that to me is one of the worst argument. You you know, we hand we need a new administration because the economy is weak. We may have to have different management of the economy or different management of Ukraine and and on and on. And it's far different than just the management thing. It's a principle that they think somebody should manage it.
It's sort of like, you know, pricing mechanisms and Federal Reserve and all that. That that nobody nobody knows nobody knows what the interest rate should be. You know, they they so that that is his principle of them assuming either the money or the authority and the people aren't alert enough to say enough is enough. You don't even have the authority to do it. But we have more people actually saying some of the things I'm just talking about.
Then then they have to overcome a lot of obstacles. That's why we have to really praise our friend Thomas Massey because he's been able to do it in a very polite polite way and very principled.
Speaker 1: You know, the other thing that that members of congress should be going down to the floor and demanding answers to is our next story for today. And this also happened over the weekend if you put this next one up. This is from the Middle East eye, but it's, it's, if you put this next, here we go. It's there we go. US involved in Israeli rescue operation that killed over 200 Palestinians.
So over the weekend, the Israelis with the participation of the US military in Israel, they said that there was a cell of US special forces in Israel that were participating In a raid, they took back four they call them hostages. In fact, two of them were were military, members of the Israeli military. So when you're captured in your military, you're a prisoner of war. Nevertheless, to get back these four, they killed, it looks like now, over 270 civilians, and they also killed three hostages, including American citizen. So if I were a member of congress, I would be demanding what is going on, where do you get the authority to participate with boots on the ground in this raid?
And how do you justify what happened in this raid? We're all happy that these four people are free. There's no question about that. And also happy to see that they were in good health. This young, this young gal who was released, it was nice to see her hugging her father.
She looked very healthy, and she didn't claim anything happened to her when she was when she was there. But on the other side, go to the next clip, because in this raid, this is a local resident who lived through the raid. It's pretty awful, but let's I'm not gonna show any pictures, but his description of it was, if you put it up, please, that next clip, please. Thank you. I saw dead children and body parts strewn all.
I saw an elderly man killed on an animal drawn cart. It was hell. Sounds very, very awful. And, again, US participation, if I'm in congress, I'm saying, how do you get the authority to do this?
Speaker 0: You know, in many ways, they're implying they won't say it because it's so foolish. Oh, this is this is a fair trade. Yes. Palestinian is 274 killed, but we we got four Israelis back. Then all of a sudden, they're weighing.
And there's a people who can do this and and and not say, well, you you know, there's a lot of delight in the families of other people who were released. But but nobody really talks about if it is, then you're in big trouble and saying, you know, there were two hundred and seventy four Palestinians killed. You know, and then there there were six hundred and a six a six seventy eight wounded. And a lot a lot of children were involved. You already mentioned that the people that the children were were involved.
And, this this is this is more, 64 of that group of the 274 were were children. And, but but that really isn't the big point. The the big point is this war is stupid. And this war is financed by United States taxpayers, and, it's the American people's complacency that they can do it. Because if you had different people in government, and we should never have permitted the last hundred years of the disappearance of our republic and everything is done for money and power, we wouldn't be facing this.
But, that doesn't mean it makes us wanna work harder, but it doesn't mean that, all of a sudden, oh, yeah. We'll just mention that and they'll change their way. Now you have to change a whole philosophy, a whole a whole system of government. And I see as bad as things are right now around the world and and all the wars and the potential wars going on, I think, you know, in a way, the economic and foreign policy, is a big is it is it becoming climatic? Yeah.
Something's gonna give, you know, our foreign policy will change, not because we've finally elected the right people. That's always helpful. We always have to have the people speaking out about what what there is available to us and what it could be replaced with. And, people will say, oh, I I heard I I guess I guess it was our president that went off the other the other day. He he was really and you hear it all the time.
Boy, when you speak out, probably that list, isolationist, isolationist, and yell and scream. And and, of course, that's a deception and a lie to begin with because if you wanna talk about isolation, look at what the world is doing today. We're coming becoming more isolationist with, with the foreign policy that we have.
Speaker 1: The sanctions. Yeah. Well, here's a story about how it went down, this raid went down. You know, that you're gonna see it. I saw just earlier some knucklehead right wingers on Twitter saying, well, it's just it's war.
People die in war. Yeah. But as you say, there's a sense of proportionality. That's why we have laws of war. War is terrible and people do die.
But, you know, you don't get to kill 300 people to save three. You know? It doesn't the proportionality is not there. But now this is from an antiwar.com write up of the raid. If we can put skip that one and go to the next one, this one starting local residents.
Yeah. There we go. So this is from the anti war write up. Local residents said the Israeli special forces who carried out the raid were disguised as displaced Palestinians from Rafa and entered the camp in an aid truck. So the Israeli military denied it used an aid truck, but Israeli media reported Israeli soldiers meant to blend in as Arabs were part of the attack.
So if this is accurate and this is true, I think it's probably one of the most cynical things you can imagine because you have a starving population. You have Israeli commandos dressed as aid workers coming in in an aid truck. These people are starving to death. They rush out to the aid truck, and they get slaughtered. And here's here's this actually gets even worse, doctor Paul.
This is Afshan Ratansi, who is an award winning journalist, and here's what he's reporting. If it's true, it's even worse than that. He said, here's how the massacre unfolded. Israel used a US built humanitarian pier to sneak in a unit of Israeli soldiers and reportedly American soldiers. The soldiers boarded a humanitarian aid truck and drove to Nusrat Refugee Camp.
Once inside, they were discovered by Palestinians, which resulted in nonstop aerial bombardment and the soldiers opening fire inside the market, killing over 210 Palestinians and injuring hundreds. The humanitarian peer gets exposed to be an occupation, assassination, and massacre pier. So if this is true and they use that pier to sneak in dressed up as aid people and then slaughtered, that is really awful.
Speaker 0: You know, the the the money is a big issue, but the other thing that they think they can dock is their their they they come up probably feeling a little bit of guilt about, you you you know, the moral aspect of this. And they think if they don't have boots on the ground, they're morally clean. And, they they probably know better, but they have to say something for the public. Oh, no. We don't have troops on the ground.
And that's usually a lie. Yeah. You know, that that the troops are on the ground. Like like right now, you are where those troops that were help helping us, who who is operating the drones. Yeah.
So it's on and on. So we have a lot of changes, but fundamentally, the principles of a foreign policy and being more attuned to what the founder suggested and what the constitution permits, is necessary. Otherwise, we're not going to just have right now, people people, you know, bipartisan. I think it's so useless because, yes, there's good guys on each side and there there's some of the coming together. But right now, even within the parties, which is probably a good thing, they're splitting up.
And so this bipartisanship of bringing the Republicans and Democrats in the leadership Yeah. And and they and they support the the funding.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, let's move on to a fascinating interview that we saw over the weekend. Thomas Massie was on with Tucker Carlson, and it was a long interview. I think Massie was really at his best. I mean, it was, it was a fascinating interview, but there was one particular part that not only stuck out, but has been written about a lot.
And so we noticed it, And this is a claim that Thomas Massie made in the interview. Now this is a media I write write up of it. If you go to the next go to the next, not not here quite yet. Go to the clip. Yeah.
Go forward forward. There we go. So this is the headline. House Republican claims every GOP colleague has an APAC Babysitter pressuring them to cast pro Israel votes. A very fascinating claim.
And in fact, let's listen to the first minute and five seconds of this little segment of this where he explains what he's talking about. You might wanna get those that earpiece in, doctor Paul, and let's listen to a minute and five seconds of Massey explaining to Tucker.
Speaker 2: Because they're not registered. Is is there any other Republican who has your views on this? Well, I have Republicans who come to me on the floor and say, I wish I could vote with you today. Yours is the right vote, but I would just take too much flack back home. And I have Republicans who come to me and say, that's wrong what APAC is doing to you.
Let me talk to my APAC person. By the way, everybody but me has an APAC person. What's that mean, an APAC person? It's like your babysitter, your APAC Babysitter, who, is always talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in your district, but they are, you know, firmly embedded in APAC and Every member has something like this?
Every I don't know how it works on the Democrat side, but that's how it works on the Republican side. And when they and when they come to DC, you go have lunch with them. And they've got your cell number, and you have conversations with them. So I've had, like that's absolutely crazy. I've had four members of congress say, I'll talk to my APAC person.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's that's we got a good chunk of that. Very interesting.
Speaker 0: You know, I don't know. I'm trying to figure this out because I've been tracking my brain, and I can't remember who my sitter was.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Your babysitter.
Speaker 0: But I'll I'll bet you Thomas doesn't pay much attention to his sitter.
Speaker 1: Well, he said he's the only one that doesn't have a Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and, that that was that was the case. No. I I felt a bit a bit of freedom because nobody bugged
Speaker 1: me Yeah.
Speaker 0: With that. And and it wasn't just APAC, but it was the rest of them Yeah. Because it was, once you establish a position, instead of them, you know, in normal times holding against you, now they get pretty rough and nasty. You put your name on a list.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So no matter what. But, that that is sure is a shame. And, but Thomas, I'm sure, does a great job.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I wrote a I wrote a a post on Twitter x, the the day that it came out. And I and I also mentioned, you know, in your it didn't really happen in your office. But the other thing that did happen is when the official APAC left, a lot of the kids would circle back and talk to you because they disagreed with their own parents, so they wanted to get your autograph. So, you know, they knew and they certainly have the right to, to petition their members of congress.
But as you correctly say, doctor Paul, if you're known as a person of principle like you were and how Thomas Massie is, they don't bother you because they know. And he even said in the interview, and I encourage people to listen to it. He's saying, look, you know, I would tell them, don't take it personal. I vote against all foreign aid, not just foreign aid to you, you know. So it, you know, it's it's interesting.
But so as as Tucker outline I mean, as Massey outlines this incredible amount of influence that a foreign country has, at the same time, put on that next clip, Trump says something completely the opposite. And, if you put on that next one, Trump complains about the Israel lobby losing influence in office, in Congress. He went on Fox News, and he said, they don't have hardly any power at all. He said, you know, Israel was the most powerful lobby in the country fifteen years ago. Today, between Tlaib and AOC, all these people, what they're doing, Israel, they don't have the backing they once did.
And he says one other thing, doctor Paul, if you put this next one on, and this is curious. He says fifteen years this this is an earlier interview. He said some fifteen years ago, Israel had the strongest lobby. If you were a politician, you shouldn't you couldn't say anything bad about Israel. It would be the end of your career.
He's almost saying that like it's a good thing, you know. He he thought it was nice that you couldn't criticize any foreign con this Yeah.
Speaker 0: When I was there, there were some very decent conservatives voted, you know, conservatively very often. But when it came to this subject, the the congressman's position was, they should become a state. Yeah. We should just make a mistake and that would solve all the problems. Yeah.
Well,
Speaker 1: I know what you you would always say that, you know, I think my position is actually better for Israel. I think we're more helpful by not treating them as as if they're a state. Oh, it
Speaker 0: would be so much better if going step back to when there was a time when there was less foreign interference. It was a much happier place. But, it's it's not there now. And, but the the the toughest job we have and the members of Congress, you know, Thomas have appointed the fact that, his constituents how am I gonna go back and explain it to him? And, I remember when the Patriot Act was passed Oh,
Speaker 1: yeah.
Speaker 0: And and I was sitting beside somebody. He usually voted with me, but he didn't on this time. I said, why why are you doing this? The, Patriot Act. He says, well, how am I gonna go home and tell my constituent?
Of course, my answer was, that's your job.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Really.
Speaker 0: That's your job. A patriot. And but, they're they don't know it's sort of like they they are you know, it's sort of the psychology of pure democracy. What's the majority say to keep my job? It isn't like I'm a leader, and I I told you I believe in the constitution.
I took an oath. I'm supposed to help you along and understanding that. No. It's not that at all. It's it's a it's a just, you use it to move on their their careers, and they do think about their careers.
Well, I've worked ten years to get this thing, and now I'm about to become I'm about to become a chairman of a of a committee. Yeah. Well but I have to raise 2 more million dollars before January in order to lobby, you know, pay our enough people to get my votes to become a chairman.
Speaker 1: What a racket.
Speaker 0: One thing I had which which was, you know, helpful to me, I had no desire because I understood the system. Why you have power to do the wrong thing? And and that's the way way they do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, we'll we'll end it on kind of a more positive note, which is that, and if you move ahead to that, Michael Tracy tweet, we always we go back to Michael often. He's a cynic, but he's he's he's a pretty smart guy. Now there's a new poll that just came out of CBS News poll. Now while congress is falling all over itself, making sure its babysitters are happy in APAC, a new poll came out showing that 61% of Americans say The US should not send weapons to Israel.
A solid, solid majority of Americans, and that would include 77% of Democrats should not send weapons. But even among Republicans, thirty eight percent, almost four in 10, while still a minority, it's a significant number, he writes. These Republicans have virtually zero representation in congress. Thirty eight percent of all Republican voters, as Michael points out, have zero representation in congress. They don't want this.
They're tired of this relationship. They feel it's toxic. They want a divorce. But, of course, congress, as usual, is on the trailing edge of these things.
Speaker 0: That's right. You know, and, Jessup Jessica Piper, a writer of this, issue, has has a quote here as she says, APAC sees support for Israel as bipartisan. That's true. And its donors come from both parties. But its practice of sending money from GOP donors into democratic races has enraged him.
You put that together with pal the Palestinian Israeli arguments that are going on, and that's, you know, that that is a big deal as far as I'm concerned of what how how how, much of an impact they've had. And, they they get big crowds out. They close down the universities and the whole works. So this is not not smooth sailing. Maybe that's what somebody that you just quoted was, sort of longing for again.
It was it was all uniform, and there wasn't all this device. But that to me is is a result it's to me, it's logical. When you run out of money and you run out of moral standards, anything goes. Yeah. It's whoever can get away with it.
And, and if because they're I I believe they're they become nihilistic, at least in nihilist nihilism, and they don't believe there is a basic principle. They don't believe there's a higher law, and they don't believe there's a moral standard. So that doesn't bother them. So they just march on. And once you give up that principle, the the best principle they have is you can do whatever you get away with.
Yeah. And that's about the way Washington works. And then when when the country becomes more bankrupt, the more they're scurrying around because I better get my share, before they run out of money or run out of wealth. So I I better find out and find out where I'm moving to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Well, my final word is to remind everyone it's a new week. Put on that last clip. It's a new week and a new opportunity to get your tickets and join us on October 31 in Dulles, Virginia near the airport, the Liberty Platform.
And I think this photo captures exactly what our intentions are. We want to be that flower growing up in this nasty concrete. We want to provide an example of beauty, and, and nature. And we have I'll start announcing some speakers, but, for those of you who trust us, we've always given a good show, a great, a great set of speakers. We have a discounted early bird ticket available right now.
Save a little bit of money and, get those tickets. I have a description a link in the description to where you can get those tickets. We look forward to seeing you at the August over here, doctor Paul.
Speaker 0: You know, we're not gonna have our way and have peace come about and, we become non interventionist. But, under these conditions, there's been a lot of very serious people quite willing to promote, ceasefires on both sides. I don't understand why they can't do that. What's I I well, I think I I have the the the thing that I believe happens is each side thinks, oh, we have the upper hand and we're gonna gain much by doing this and that. But when it's so bad, there's a pseudo ceasefire now going on, but it's it's not worth much.
But if they say should start with a ceasefire and they should start with it. Get the foreign troops out of these lands. And in our case, in America, we should not make it complicated. Just bring the troops home. I wanna thank everybody for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
Please come back soon.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
The law says Trump can't fire Powell? Well, the U.S. Constitution says The Fed shouldn't exist! https://t.co/KtggO0gwXm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fed Chair Powell stated he wouldn't resign if asked by President Trump, citing the law that protects him from being fired. However, the real issue is the existence of the Federal Reserve, which many argue is unconstitutional and operates as a monopoly that manipulates money and interest rates. This central bank prioritizes its own survival and that of major banks over the public's interests, hindering a genuinely free society. Education about sound money is essential for the public to understand these issues and push for change. While the future of the Fed remains uncertain, the founders recognized that true wealth comes from productivity, not from creating money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today's topic, Doctor. Paul and I noticed that, Fed Chair Powell was asked, if President Trump asks you to resign, will you? And he flat out says, no, I will not. The law says that the president can't fire me. And right away my mind says, law says, well, there's a higher law, the supreme law of the land that everybody raises their right hand, they swear an oath to, it's called the US Constitution and that law never gave any authority to the federal government to create a monopoly central bank that can manipulate interest rates and counterfeit money.
Counterfeiting is a crime. So the government created this bank that counterfeits. That's the law. The Fed should not exist according to the law. But pal, you know, he didn't mention any of this.
So and of all monopolies to give, you know, this isn't a monopoly to create milkshakes for people. This is money. This is a part of every single transaction in our nation that they gave them a monopoly. It's astounding. So, he's saying, no, the President, because of the law, can't fire me.
You know, that's not even the issue here. The issue is the existence of the Federal Reserve and that, you know, while that may not be addressed today, it will be someday and, we say the sooner the better. Is that right, Doctor. Paul?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. They're going to they're going to continue to mess around with that, but your point is perfect. And the idea is, where do they how can they be so choosy? You know, it's, I can't do that under the law. So this this and your point is right.
They're pointing out that the laws, the arbitrary laws that they write that do not follow the rules of the constitution or natural law, it becomes, the law because they've instituted. And, you know, the worst part about this is that, they cling to that like it's a biblical message. I mean, it it is ingrained in them because they don't, for a minute, think, oh, we we have a little trick here. We're gonna play on the people. Because they've talked themselves into believing that the constitution is dangerous if it's overly rigid.
So here here's here's a perfect example of this where they arbitrarily pick what is legal and what is not. It's, you know, the constitutional restraint against, you know, a central bank, there's no authority for that, is one thing that they totally ignore.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve cares about its own survival itself and the biggest bank. It's the biggest banks. I mean, that's what it's there for. It's a cartel of the biggest banks, that has a government privilege, which it should not have.
So their ultimate priority is themselves and this is wrong, you know, because everybody else, including us, is lower on the totem pole of their priorities. So this power should not exist. And as long as the Fed does exist, we can't have a genuinely free society, free economic life. It's impossible. You can't have a monopoly central bank.
You need sound money for freedom. So but people need to understand this, you know, not many do more than ever, thanks to Doctor. Paul, but there's still a lot of work to be done and people can ultimately understand it. I mean, look what happened with the open border. People finally understood, you know, this is we have to stop this and they voted for it.
So people can, over time, see the problems and get the right solutions and understand. So that's the goal and ultimately the Fed will face some type of, you know, public backlash. When that day comes is anybody's guess. It could be a long time from now. It could be a short time from now.
But the goal is to educate people so they want sound money, they understand the problem, and then finally, the Fed will be gone.
Speaker 1: Oh, wonderful. We ought to stop right there. So you're positive of that. You'll guarantee it, won't you? Well, you know, in a way we we can if we proceed if we continue to do what we're doing now, there are some things that you could almost guarantee.
Well, one thing is if the, Central Bank is permitted to permit money at will and to cover all government debt, you can assume that the value of the currency is going to go down and prices will go up. And that's not real complicated. The answers are not confusing. The the the founders were on the right track. They knew what honest money was about.
We should follow the path of the money and and recognize that creating money does not create wealth. Productivity creates wealth, and that's a different story. In freedom, you have the maximum amount of productivity and the maximum amount of prosperity.
reSee.it AI Summary
This week, I saw Fed Chairman Jerome Powell firmly state he wouldn't resign if President Trump asked him to. He clarified that the law prevents the president from firing him. However, he didn't address the fundamental issue: the Federal Reserve's existence itself. I believe the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, lacking any authority granted to the federal government to create a monopoly bank that manipulates interest rates and counterfeits money. The real question isn't about authority but rather why the Federal Reserve should exist at all.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
This week, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell was asked if he would step down if President Trump asked him to resign. Powell answered “No.” The law does not permit the president to fire the Fed chairman. Powell didn’t mention, however, that The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional to begin with. No power was ever granted to the federal government to create a monopoly bank that manipulates interest rates and counterfeits money. So the big issue is not who has more authority over the other; the president or the Fed chairman. The issue is that the Federal Reserve should not exist at all! Watch below:
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you for joining the Liberty Report. Despite recent news, uncertainty remains in the economy, influenced by the Federal Reserve's decisions. This week, Fed Chair Powell appeared flustered during an interview, reflecting the tension surrounding monetary policy. The ongoing debt and spending issues raise concerns about the economy's stability.
We emphasize the importance of considering alternatives like gold investments through Birch Gold, especially as inflation and government spending continue to rise. Powell's comments on potential changes under a new administration highlight the Fed's complex role, but ultimately, the existence of the Federal Reserve undermines true economic freedom.
Education on sound money and the flaws of the Fed is crucial for future change. The founders understood that wealth comes from productivity, not money creation. Thank you for tuning in, and we hope to see you again soon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With us today, we have Chris Rosini, our co host. Chris, welcome to the program.
Speaker 1: Happy Friday. Great to be with you, doctor Paul. Good.
Speaker 0: I don't know how we can make news today. It looks like all the news came out last week. Everybody knows what's gonna happen from here on out. But, obviously being very facetious, things are in influx even though victory has been declared and a lot of happy people are about that. And, we'll we'll wait and see.
I keep arguing that the market forces will determine what will happen. Not today or tomorrow, but, you know, within weeks or months. That it'll be all all the questions will be ironed out. But, you know, there there were quite a few things that, went went on this week, obviously, election, but it was also, the Federal Reserve Board meeting. That that came up and and, they have this full discussion.
You know, I watched the interview, with on on the chairman after the announcement, And I have never seen a chairman so flustered in my life. You know, he was he was like, he was responding, you know, the the, conservative Republican stations have been reflecting and to get getting getting comments made by the Liberals who were actually crying and all this sort of thing. They were very upset with it. Well, Powell was very, very upset. But he, he wasn't joining the language as much, but you he he exuded it even stronger because there were a couple times they asked him questions that were serious since he said, no.
And then they'd ask him again. No. No. You can't do that. Discuss the law.
It it was it was pretty amazing. He was pretty pretty unhappy because, in truth, he he didn't have have the answers. And, you know, but it tell it tells you about the the, yeah, the influence that the Fed has on the economy. And it also has, the whole universe of activity, whether it's the Federal Reserve or the Congress or elections. It has a lot to do with pricing, you know, of, the the metals and what the stock market is doing, what, cryptocurrencies are doing.
And, it's it's, not easy to predict exactly what would happen. I operate personally on the assumption that long term history helps me more than last week's announcements by the Fed. And, all the pretense that comes from the university professors. So I I look at the fact that long term monetary issues have generally, you know, been well known. Even before they were coining gold, they knew about the value of gold and that's 6000 years.
So there's there's a lot of knowledge and I don't think we should dismiss it. The one thing that I watch a lot and I will continue to watch because it's unknown, especially on how much money is gonna be spent, what the deficits are gonna be. But deficits are major. The debt is major, and and the malinvestment is important, and there always has to be liquidation when it gets out of whack. I think that's what people are concerned about right now is getting the getting all this system, you know, resolved back to a more orderly fashion.
And, there's a lot of talk, but there's a lot of room to go because as long as that debt is going up, and I don't expect spending to cut in a real sense even though there's people in the new administration that are talking about it. And, we've we've visited with some of them in a positive manner. But the but the problem is overwhelming. This is the reason we have a close relationship and, partnership, with Birch Gold. Because Birch Gold offers an alternative if you are concerned.
If you say you listen to the propaganda, oh, it's gonna be okay. New administration. After Reagan was elected, it was amazing how things were calmed down, for a long time, and everybody quit donating to conservative groups because they said Reagan's in. It's gonna all be solved. Well, all the problems have not been solved, and therefore, I think the monetary issue is bigger than either political party, and that's gonna continue.
So this is the reason we continue the relationship with Birch Gold Group. And one thing that they have done over the years because we were all in agreement that there is a bubble out there. There's a bubble in a lot of things, real estate, you know, and stocks. And and and and they the bubbles don't last forever. So they have advocated and we have promoted the idea that you could take your stocks and your 401ks and and your IRA accounts and convert it without a tax penalty into a gold IRA, which makes you sensible because I I remember all of quite a few years, half of my life at one time, 40 some years, we weren't even allowed to own gold, so it was hard to invest in gold.
But here it is. It's not simple because, you you can't just put it into a rigor you can't put bullion into a rigor gold iron, and that's why they have these special, directions on how to do it. And that's the that's the information that Birch Gold offers. So if you're interested in that, if you haven't already talked to them, keep keep track of it. And if you want some more information, the information is free on how to start it, how to do this transfer.
So that if you're interested in that, on on the screen, you should see how to do that. And you want to, text Ron at 989-898 and and get this information. So this is very important. And, I I will say that number again so that you can know what to do because the problems aren't going to go away. I know gold goes up sharply and down to slam with the stock market, but there are certain events that are are steadily getting worse, spending, taxes, Federal Reserve printing of money.
So that's why I advocate. Look again to this if you haven't already done it, and that would be Ron 989888. Get in touch with Birch Gold to get some free information on how you can do this. So Priscilla, that's, that's our our our hit that we make as frequently as we can and to try to get as many people. I believe it is as many people as possible that are protected, by looking into the metals.
And, I understand that, there may be other ways to do it other than the, the IRA accounts that, people can look at, through working with Birch Gold.
Speaker 1: That's right, doctor Paul. Yeah. Just an addition that we'll be adding this month until Black Friday, every $5,000 that you invest in gold, silver, anything at Birch Gold, they will give you a free Silver Eagle coin, 1 ounce. So that's a nice little incentive. So, yeah, text, Ron to 9 89898, and they will take care of you with free information.
Today's topic, doctor Paul and I noticed that, fed, chair Powell was asked, if President Trump asks you to resign, will you? And he flat out says no, I will not. The law says that the President can't fire me. And right away my mind says law says, well, there's a higher law, the supreme law of the land that everybody raises their right hand, they swear an oath to. It's called the US Constitution, and that law never gave any any authority to the federal government to create a monopoly central bank that can manipulate interest rates and counterfeit money.
Counterfeiting is a crime. So the government created this bank that counterfeits. That's the law. That's the Fed should not exist according to the law. But pal, you know, he didn't mention any of this.
So and and of all monopolies to give, you know, this isn't a monopoly to create milkshakes for for people. This is money. This is a a a part of every single transaction in our nation that they gave them a monopoly. It's it's astounding. So he's saying no, the president, because of the law, can't fire me.
You know, that's not even the issue here. The issue is the existence of the Federal Reserve and that, you know, while that may not be addressed today, it will be someday and, we say the sooner the better. Is that right, doctor
Speaker 0: Paul? Absolutely. They're gonna they're gonna continue to mess around with that, but your point is perfect. And the idea is, where do they how could they be so choosy? You know, it's a I can't do that under the law.
So this this and and your point is right. They're pointing out that the laws, the arbitrary laws that they write that do not follow the rules of the constitution or natural law, it becomes, the law because they've instituted. And, you know, the worst part about this is that, they cling to that like it's a a biblical message. I mean, it it is ingrained in them because they don't, for a minute, think, oh, we we have a little trick here. We're gonna play on the people because they've talked themselves into believing that the constitution is dangerous if it's overly rigid.
So here here's here's a perfect example of this where they arbitrarily pick what is legal and what is not. It's, you know, the constitutional restraint against, you know, a central bank, there's no authority for that, is one thing that they totally ignore. But if they think they can get some benefits from this, they do. But that that was the one question that, Powell really became distressed about about, you know, whether there could be, whether the president would gain more power, you know, authority, who who has it. And, the the proper thing is is, neither one of them should have this authority.
And, and and yet this is one of the things that, I've worked with a couple years, a year or 2, that is there's a lot of shenanigans going on with the Federal Reserve, and they have been. They continue to do it, and it's part of the deep state. But they they do they do this. They continue to do it at the same at the same time. They've they all who say we need transparency, they resist, you know, giving any endorsement, to the audit.
Except when we worked on this for many years, the support for the audit has continued to grow, and I think that's very good. But the people who control the ultimate power structure, are that what I call the deep state, it's it's not gonna come easily because there are too many secrets in there. And they say, well, they have audits. Yeah. They have, you know, a CPA audits and say, oh, yeah.
They have the accounting of all this, but they don't have any accounting of all the activities overseas, the international activities, what happens in emergencies, and where the money goes, and who gets bailed out. I mean, it's it's real it's really a a big deal. So someday well, I don't have any doubt it's gonna end. I mean, we see the weak spots already. Just like in the, in the 3rd world countries that you read about, you know, you know, Venezuela and other countries, they have runaway inflation and it all ends.
It won't be quite as dramatic well, it'll be dramatic, but it won't go the quite same way. But eventually, some powerful central banks that that overdo it and print too much at the value at the the currency. So right now, I didn't see any real sincere concern about the long term value of the dollar. And that that isn't just not on the exchange market, but what does the dollar purchase when somebody goes to the store to buy groceries? And, for some reason, there's very very little effort to grasp the the different.
Oh, I thought we just needed more bono more bono more go more government handouts so we could pay for our groceries. So there's a lot to go yet, but I think the climactic end to this is coming quickly, and we ought to try to help as many people as possible get prepared for it.
Speaker 1: Very good, doctor Paul. Yes. I'm gonna do something that I rarely, if ever, do, and that's I'll give him a a small compliment because relatively speaking, you know, the Fed exists. Powell is not the worst Fed chair. And I could say that because, you know, their income tax also exists.
But relatively speaking, a 10% income tax would be much better than a 50%. So that's the qualifier. But Powell did raise interest rates against a lot of resistance. You know, people wanted 0 interest rates for until today. They still want them.
And those days are gone and that's where a lot of damage was happening. That's where the black rocks were taking advantage at 0 rates. And every time that Powell raised rates he had a lot of people, oh, he has to pivot, he has to pivot back. You know, Elizabeth Warren was constantly look at what you're doing to everybody. But he kept raising rates which was the right thing to do and it looks like 0 rates are now a thing of the past.
You know, nobody knows the future, but as of now, so as a Fed Chair, because it exists, you know, he did the right thing. There could have been a worse person there, you know, like an Elizabeth Warren, she would have kept him at 0. So all of this again, we will get back to the truth here about it, is wrong. None of this should exist. The income tax should not exist.
The Fed should not exist and it has to go. All of this happened in a revolution against our freedom back in 1913. The income tax, the Federal Reserve, that all has to be reversed. But, you know, speaking in relative terms, Powell is not the worst guy to have the job.
Speaker 0: Very good. And I think your tone and explanation is very good because when when a so called political or philosophic enemy acknowledging what they have said and done right. That that is important. But, overwhelmingly, though, we suffer the consequence for the, other side where they hide everything and do it to the people and punish people and hide it. But I think clear, you know you know, keep the thing clear and above board and civil is important.
I do want to, reread and want to quote from the from Powell because he they were asking him about, you know, what if what how how is he gonna respond, to the new administration? And that that is the big issue. How's he gonna handle Trump? And how's the bargain gonna handle Trump? And, so to us who don't, think it's sacred that the that the whole organization is sacred, the monetary system, that a little bit of the honest debate might be beneficial.
But, in an article on from 0 hedge, yesterday, they were talking about this, another irrelevant 25, basis points. And the the point was that they raised the interest rate 25 points just recently, and and nobody knows exactly what it was supposed to do. I mean, that's supposed to be helpful to the economy. It keep rates, another another you know, to keep the interest rates low. But at the same time, the longer rates were going up.
So it immediately, it wasn't working right. So, but when they when they were pressing Powell on how's he gonna respond to Trump, I think he had something interested. He says, and this is regarding the impact of the new administration of monetary policy. Powell said, we don't know what the timing and substance of any policy will be. And he's talking about from coming from, what the administration Trump is gonna propose.
We therefore don't know what the effects on the economy would be, specifically, whether and to what extent these policies would matter for the achievement of our goal variables, maximum unemployment and price price stability. And, the whole thing is, but the Fed knows, you know, all this stuff. Nobody in the administration, nobody in academia, nobody in a libertarian position say you guys shouldn't even exist. You know? No.
You don't wanna listen to that, but you don't wanna listen to anybody from the administration. But what you wanna do is you matter of fact, you what you wanna do is recognize and he what he was doing was defending the champion, knowledge of the Federal Reserve. And they believe it, and they'll do it, and they do, politely sometimes say, well, we did this a little too soon, and they play these game. But really, they wanna be the kingpin on the ultimate policy. They could he can't stand the idea that maybe somebody other than the, Fed would have participate in policy.
And people will argue with me and they say, you know, that's true. If you turn it over to congress and turn it over to the house and and they're gonna dictate all these minutiae on the metal monetary policy, it's it's gonna be terrible. They'll they're making making it work, which is probably true. So why have one? You know, why why don't we just resort to the market?
If lowering if lowering the rates of the other day didn't work and rates actually went up, why don't we admit that they're just a it's a game they play. It's it's a lot of politicking and it's a lot of bureaucracy. It's propaganda. And it's it's powerful stuff. And, sometimes the market and everybody needs needs tons of money.
You know, I might have to have QE again. And we're not talking about a few trillion. Now we're talking about how are we gonna bail out $35,000,000,000,000. So I think it's amazing. This is very clear cut to show we don't wanna listen to any of that nonsense because they don't know how the market works.
They can't know what's that gonna happen if they do this, but we at the Fed know. But I would advise you, don't let your guard down.
Speaker 1: Excellent, doctor Paul. I'll finish up. Yeah. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve cares about its own survival itself and the biggest banks. I mean, that's what it's there for.
It's a cartel of the biggest banks, that, you know, has a government privilege, which it should not have. So their ultimate priority is themselves and this is wrong, you know, because everybody else, including us, is lower on the totem pole of their priorities. So this power should not exist. And as long as the Fed does exist we can't have a genuinely free society, free economic life, it's impossible. You can't have a monopoly central bank.
You need sound money for freedom. So while we can do better than before, we can't have a free market, a free society. So but people need to understand this. Not many do more than ever, thanks to Doctor. Paul, but, there's still a lot of work to be done and people can ultimately understand it.
I mean, look what happened with the open border. People finally understood, you know, this is we have to stop this and they voted for it. So people can, over time, see the problems and get the right solutions and understand. So that's the goal. And ultimately the Fed will face some type of, you know, public backlash.
When that day comes is anybody's guess. It could be a long time from now. It could be a short time from now. But the goal is to educate people so they want sound money, they understand the problem, and then finally, the Fed will be gone.
Speaker 0: Oh, wonderful. We ought to stop right there. So you're positive of that. You'll guarantee it, won't you? Well, you know, in a way, we we can if we proceed if we continue to do what we're doing now, there are some things that you could almost guarantee.
Well, one thing is if the, central bank is permitted to permit money at will and to cover all government debt, you could assume that the value of the currency is going to go down and prices will go up. And that's not real complicated. And but but, along with that, this concern about Trump telling the Fed what to do, the Powell defending the position of the Fed, he said and he was saying, well, what we'll do is, since we can't know, you know, in advance, you know, what the what Trump is proposing, whether it's good or bad, he says, we wait and see the data, and then we make the decision. And then they they take these thousands of pages and hundreds of economists and all the propagandists and all the specialists that we you know, they claim they can put that together and decide whether interest rates should go up or down, how much money we need this month. And, but they they're going to be more deliberate in their way for the data.
But the one thing that I think they ignore in making these decisions, because we we think it's not wise, not good economic policy, It's because they don't know. They can't know. They don't know what the interest rates would be. It is the most important price in economics. It's what is the true price of the inter of the the borrowing money, the interest rate.
And and nobody knows about it because there's so much interference except in the black market. Maybe maybe the true interest rate is by our credit card interest rates. Now I understand that's pretty high. So maybe that's where the true interest rate is, not whether it's 0.25 or 0.46 or whatever. Some fictitious, number.
But there's a and also the Fed will say, well, we figured it out. We know where we are now. So we're gonna change the interest rates. We know what the price should be and how much money we need. And they send all the cash out into there and say, well, they're gonna do this and and we expect them to take this money and pay these bills or and they invest in this and all these things.
They have a plan. But the whole thing is, they have no control of that because the way people spend money, if you create 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars to pay off debt, maybe they'll wanna maybe they wanna go to the racetrack or something. They don't know how because there's a subjective decision made by the people on all their purchases. And what are the reasons why all this calculation and all these mathematical formula for taking a look at the statistic page after page of statistic and then putting it down and get advice for so many people and then they'll know what to do. Well, it's a it's a joke because they don't know what to do.
And that's why we get ourselves into this mess. We do too much, we get too much involved overseas. We get a welfare state that's a runaway, and then we end up with a $35,000,000,000,000 deficit and debt that's expanding rapidly. But the answers are not not confusing. The the the founders were on the right track.
They knew what honest money was about. We should follow the path of the money and and recognize that creating money does not create wealth. Productivity creates wealth, and that's a different story. In freedom, you have the maximum amount of productivity and the maximum amount of prosperity. Wanna thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Please come back soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
For over a century, the U.S. government managed freedom of speech by controlling the information Americans received through schools and licensed media. This control meant there was little threat from free expression as long as the narratives were managed. However, the rise of the Internet has disrupted this monopoly, allowing individuals to choose their information sources freely. Now, while misinformation persists, Americans have a real opportunity to access the truth from diverse perspectives. The government now finds this newfound freedom of speech intolerable as their control wanes.
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
For over 100 years, the U.S. government ‘tolerated’ freedom of speech because they virtually controlled the information that Americans received. Whether it be from the government-controlled schools, or from watching one of the handful of ‘licensed’ TV stations, all Americans consumed the same pre-packaged “narratives.” There was no threat to the government from Americans speaking freely, as long as the “narratives” were controlled. But that monopoly has been shattered with the Internet. We all choose our sources of information, who to follow and who to block, or just ignore. While lies will always exist (both in and out of government) the American people actually have fighting chance to hear the truth! It's now possible to hear/see/read the truth, and it can come from anywhere in the world, at any time. Under these new circumstances, the government is finding freedom of speech intolerable, because their control over information is gone. Watch below:
@RonPaul - Ron Paul
Trump Was Right -- They Were Spying On Him! Watch the whole show here: https://rumble.com/v4ddpji-coup-obamas-spooks-outsourced-spying-on-trump-to-foreign-services.html?mref=jcwo5&mc=2sdbb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses a report revealing that the CIA and foreign allies spied on Trump's team, triggering the Russia collusion hoax. The mainstream media's lack of coverage on this important story is attributed to their loss of trust. The US intelligence community, including the CIA, allegedly mobilized foreign intelligence agencies to target Trump's advisers before the supposed triggering meeting. The FBI's investigation was believed to have started after an Australian intelligence official informed US officials, but it is now revealed that the US intelligence community initiated contact with the foreign agencies. John Brennan, the former CIA director, is implicated in this alleged coup to prevent Trump from becoming president. The video suggests that the media's strategy is to ignore these revelations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, anywhere else, a report like this would have been at the top of the news because it's a massively important story. But in today's day and age, with the mainstream media being what it is and there's a reason why nobody trusts it at all anymore, it's relegated to what used to be sort of, oh, that's just a blog, but now these are sub stacks and and this particular one, there are 2 that we're collaborating on the story, Public and Racket, and our our, our viewers will know the authors behind it, Michael Shellenberger, Nat Taibbi, and Alex Guttentag, these are the 3 that were heavily involved in the Twitter files. They're the ones who expose the fact, that the US government was colluding with the social media to censor the American people, which was illegal would have been illegal for them to do. Well, here's a blockbuster story, that came out.
CIA had foreign allies spy on Trump team, as you said, doctor Paul, triggering Russia collusion hoax, say sources. Now if we go to the next clip from this piece so essentially, what had happened is originally, the, the the reporting was originally that a Trump campaign adviser spoke to an Australian former diplomat, and everyone remembers the story. It said something about how we've got some dirt on Hillary or something thing from the Russians, and that triggered the FBI investigation. Well, that wasn't the case. Multiple credible sources tell Public and Racket, those are the 2 different substacks, that the United States intelligence community, including the CIA, illegally mobilized foreign intelligence agencies to target Trump advisers long before the summer of 16, that's when the meeting was supposed to take place in the summer of 16, which triggered it.
Go to the next one now. The official story, as I mentioned, until now had been that the FBI began investigating only after the Australian intelligence official told US officials. So if it originated overseas and it came back to the US intelligence community, well, that would have been different. But in truth, as they found out in the reporting, the US intelligence agency, in, intelligence community asked the 5 eyes, and you pointed out the former British Empire Spook Agencies, they asked them they initiated the contact. They asked them to surveil Trump's associates and share that intel back with the US agencies.
Now go back to and let's look at the face of the person who would most likely spearheaded this. The person on the right, John Brennan, this is the guy behind what you rightly called doctor Paul a coup. This US intelligence community trying to prevent president Trump from becoming president Trump, and this is what they did. It's astonishing.
Speaker 1: We're seeing bits and Put pieces in places where people are throwing their hands up and say, You're a bunch of liars.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, you know, and, and we're we're not gonna buy this. And, it's I think I think that's why even if The truth comes out like this, and it doesn't get a lot of attention elsewhere. You you we're we're actually you know, when Taibi does it and a few others, When they bring that up, they're more credible.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, if it were out there, some, you know, in the regular meeting, people say, Well, these are the guys that lied it's a lot
Speaker 0: of stress all the time.
Speaker 1: Why should we lie? Why should we believe it? But you know what's their I think their technique now is not confronting this But to ignore it the best I can.
Speaker 0: That's what they wanna do. Yeah. But you remember, you know, in the early days of Trump, and I think it was even in the campaign, when Trump was saying, they're spying on my campaign. They're spying on my campaign. And the other side, the Obama people, including the spooks, they would go on and say, see, this man is clearly paranoid.
He's he's got conspiracy theories about people spying on him. Well, in fact, it turns out they were spying on him, and that's a that's a fact. And we know they've done this in history, we know that the FBI spied on Martin Luther King Junior and caused him a lot of distress. They spied on Ernest Ernest Hemingway and probably caused him to blow his brains out. This is what they do, but they were spying on the campaign.
And guess what? It was John Brennan himself who was up to his eyeballs in this. Now put on the next one. This will tell you, the details about it this is the one, after public and racket had been told here we go. One more forward if we can.
After public and racket, these are 2 substacks that printed about it, had been told that president Barack Obama CIA director John Brennan had identified 26 Trump associates for the 5 eyes to target a source. Their source confirmed that the intelligence community had identified them as people to bump, which means to make contact with or manipulate. They were targets of our own intelligence community and law enforcement. Targets for collection and misinformation. So they were the ones doing the misinformation.
It really looks to me like John Brennan should be in jail. You know? Yeah. This is a coup.
Speaker 1: You know, this started out, in a more subtle way, but look at how many people are involved. These various countries are involved, And then they get involved really in more recently into the media and into, social media, and, the propaganda machine they have is Unbelievable.
Coup! Obama's Spooks Outsourced Spying On Trump To FOREIGN Services!
A new bombshell report by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger shows that the Obama Administration intelligence agencies used their foreign counterparts to spy on the Trump campaign and its personnel
rumble.com