SecDef Austin: 'Start ACTING Like China Is Top Enemy!'
A 100 day review of US policy toward China has determined - surprise! - that not only is China the top threat, but that the Pentagon needs to stop jawboning the threat and start acting on it...whatever that means. The policy review was conducted by a former employee of the Center for a New American Security...which is funded by weapons manufacturers and foreign governments including Taiwan! Also today: Has Fauci jumped the shark with his 'I am Science!' pronouncement?
Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to have you with us.
Happy Thursday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
I'm doing fine, thank you.
And we're going to talk about a subject we've been sort of neglecting for a while.
We may talk a little bit about the persistent nonsense going on with COVID.
But I really wanted to do something on foreign policy.
And we've mentioned already several times that even though the problems that we face in the lockdown is getting not quite so bad, we know that it's going to be around.
They're not going to give us all our liberties back again.
And they might even accelerate in the distant future.
They may find another virus.
Who knows what?
But we do know the TSA never got friendlier after it was established.
They kept coming up with more creative mischief for us.
So Daniel, you and I had this little talk and I said, well, I think we need to do something on foreign policy.
Then it just dawned on me with the reports.
The reports are showing that there's a lot of activity with China, you know, especially and there's a lot of China bashing.
The other day, somebody came up to me on the street and he says, oh, I want to run for Congress or I want to run for Congress.
He was not likely to be a candidate for Congress, but his biggest issue was China.
So I think it is a big issue.
So I think I want to start off, Daniel, with a bill that was just recently passed in the Congress.
And to me, it's very significant because it does a lot of things.
It talks about foreign policy.
It talks about bipartisanship, the kind that we don't like.
And it talks about spending money, this sort of thing.
But can't complain much.
It's all done by bipartisanship because just last week they had this Senate passes massive $250 billion legislation to counter China.
China's ready to attack us.
But I'll tell you what, I don't know how you, what information you're getting, Daniel, but I think the grassroots are really, really either confused about it or don't understand what a non-interventionist foreign policy is.
Because what the sense I get from them is that if you don't become very, very hawkish and threatening and ready to go to war, you're un-American, you're unpatriotic, and that you're in greater danger.
But of course, I think our program has tried to make the point that arguing a non-interventionist foreign policy, even if on the surface it looks like you're not being militant enough to make sure our country is safe, I think you're setting a standard for making things much worse.
And it just looks like that's what we might be leading into with this type of legislation.
Yeah, we're looking at some stuff written by Dave DeCamp, who's a really good writer and he writes for anti-war.com.
He's done some good work on this.
But, you know, we talked about before the show, Dr. Paul, how it's kind of a sickness, you know, with COVID kind of dying down, now they've got to light this fire, get everyone ramped up, get everyone excited.
But the bill we're talking about, it passed 68 to 32, so bipartisan.
It is the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021.
And, you know, what strikes me, Dr. Paul, aside from all the other crony stuff that I'm sure you'll be talking about in a second, the irony is that the U.S. is targeting China as this evil government.
But if you look at what this bill does, the U.S. is acting more like commies than the Chinese are because it's taking taxpayer dollars, $250 billion from the taxpayer.
It's going to subsidize U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.
It's going to be subsidizing scientific research and development.
It's basically socializing more of the economy and calling it and calling it something to oppose the so-called socialism of China.
So just like with the criticism of China, the U.S. adopts its worst policies like surveillance and social credit system in the form of vaccine passports.
Now we're adopting a policy of economic socialism.
So in a sense, we're fighting China, but we're actually becoming more and more like what we claim China is like.
Yes, and there's no doubt that this can be classified as corporate welfare, crony capitalism.
And it's not exactly a representative position for us to set for a standard around the world.
Matter of fact, I think it just tends to do exactly the opposite.
And there's various reasons why we're doing this.
I think one is the fact that we are weakening ourselves with the biggest debt in the world's history.
At the same time, the spending is out of control and the lockdown didn't do us any favors.
But it's something that they're looking for something, and I think that they have to have something going like a foreign policy enemy.
But that's been traditional.
We hear, we've complained about that for a long time.
But right now, it's China.
They go back and forth.
They'll hit Russia for a while.
But, you know, neither one of them, if you thought, are they about ready to invade this country?
I think militarily, in spite of our wasting all money and some of the inefficiencies that are coming up, we're still the most powerful nation with weaponry in the history of the world.
But the policies are what's so weak.
But I don't know if you noticed, Daniel, who it's actually on the Democratic side was the leader of this thing.
The effort was led by Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer.
Remember that guy?
Yep.
But some of his quotes are pretty amazing.
The world is more competitive now than any time since the end of the Second World War.
Maybe, maybe.
Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote, quote, if we do nothing, our days as the dominant superpower may be ending.
So, but he's one of those progressive Democrats.
You know, in the old days, a progressive Democrat was open to a discussion with constitutionalists and libertarians and other progressives who thought we shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff.
And it was actually hurting the people in this country because of the spending and the increase in threat.
Just think of how many, because of that policy, how many wars have we been in, especially in this century?
Fortunately, as bad as they have been, they have been nothing like the big wars of the 20th century, this century.
They're there.
But I think, Daniel, what we are concerned about is that little wars don't always stay little.
And Right now, this is being built up.
And it's, and I think our job is to make the case still for the non-interventionist foreign policy with conviction and trying to get the people to agree that trading with people isn't the way you fight wars.
The founders from the very beginning said when you trade with people, you're less likely to fight wars.
So what do we do?
We put on the sanctions.
Even these sanctions that Trump put on and got so much criticism from the Democrats, they're maintaining a lot of this.
So like foreign policy, and you know this so well, the foreign policy is controlled by not the grassroots Democrats or the grassroots Republicans.
It's controlled by the military-industrial complex and the deep state and the money makers and those people who really believe in a special type of bipartisanship.
Yeah, I think what you raised is the crux of the issue, Dr. Paul, and you said, is China going to invade us?
Because that's everything is predicated on this presumption that China is poised to invade the United States.
Otherwise, why are we so concerned about preparing a military response?
We'll talk about that later.
But China has shown no indication that it wants to invade the U.S. or any other place.
What would they do if they did?
Take over our homes, take over our Walmarts or something.
The idea is just so preposterous.
And really, we're hastening our own decline by responding to an economic challenge coming from China, which we know that's their foreign policy.
Their foreign policy is to create economic partnerships overseas and to profit from that.
We'll respond to an economic challenge with a military response and with crony capitalism, as you say.
But you know, the funny thing about it, and we'll talk about Secretary of Defense Austin's new orders to his people after a review, but this new review of our stance toward China talks about we've got to get tougher because of Chinese aggression.
But then when you look at this bill that we're talking about, the bill has more sanctions on Chinese officials over Xenjiang, which is mostly cooked up by neocons.
The idea that China is creating a genocide over there.
Most of it's neocon nonsense, but more sanctions, prohibiting U.S. officials from attending the Olympics in Beijing in 2022, strengthening ties with Taiwan, more military ties with Taiwan.
So it's never aggression when we do it, you know, but it's clearly that's the intent of this bill.
So you punch someone in the eye, you know, and then you, and then you talked about the other person's aggression.
Yes, that's the trick they use all the time.
And that's for domestic issues as well as the foreign policy issues.
But you did mention the one thing that caught my attention very early on.
Make sure that nobody can participate in international sports.
So there were a lot of people.
I know that really irks you.
And when I think back to, and Carter was the first one to do this with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
And we wanted to teach those Russians a lesson.
So they wised up and left.
And we're still there.
And of course, we're still using, but Carter, you know, banned, it was a little even more vicious in what's going on.
He banned the American teams for going.
And then a few months later, it was so disgusting because everybody recognized, oh, those poor athletes.
Yeah, I would say it's a tragic end for somebody to prepare for 10 years to get the Olympics and go, and then they cancel it.
So, if they canceled, they felt badly for that.
So, a month or two later, the Congress took care of it.
They said, We'll give you all a gold medal.
Yeah, sort of an insult.
It sort of reminds me of what the kids do now when everybody gets a gold medal and some of the sports they play.
Attack On Civil Liberties00:09:00
They think you can't treat anybody differently.
Everybody wins.
And some of the kids are so smart that they refuse to take their ribbons in saying, No, I don't want it.
It doesn't mean anything.
So it's a shame, but they're up to their old tactics.
I keep looking for something in that bill that would say we're moving in the right direction, but it's an attack on civil liberties.
It's attack on, it's attack on the trade, it's attack on the militarism.
But the big thing is, is a lot of people that I mentioned at the beginning that are anxious for us to be more aggressive.
The issue they use is everything they make in China is made by slaves, and they have no respect for civil liberties.
And you know what?
They're not running a slave operation.
They have low labor, low payments, but at least that means the people aren't in the streets.
But the one thing is, they aren't angels on civil liberties, and I think it's terrible what they do.
But is it going to be that we have more influence by doing what we're doing?
Or could we be confusing things?
Because I would always ask the question when these things came up in the Congress is, well, I want to find out if we do anything to them, to our people, in violation of civil liberties.
And, you know, there just are a few things.
You know, when you think of Assange and Ed Snowden, and how about the people that have been arrested on January 6th are still in prison?
What about their civil liberties?
And we're going to lecture somebody else.
Yes, they have infractions, but that's pure hypocrisy.
If we think we can use guns and go and teach the Chinese how to be better civil libertarian, I think it's only done by setting an example and maybe persuade them, no, persuade first our government to understand what civil liberties are all about.
I'm glad you brought up those prisoners, and you did write about it in your column this week.
You know, these are clearly political prisoners.
They've committed minor, if any, offenses, and they're being held without bail.
Dozens of them, hundreds have been arrested.
So, yes, it's an open wound, I think, on American society, despite what the Dems want to say about it.
But the other thing, and we've touched on a little bit, is this 100-day review of China policy.
This is what Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered back in January, I guess.
And his conclusion, Dr. Paul, is we need to start acting like China is the top possibility or a priority, like China's the top threat, instead of just talking about it.
And here's the thing, Dr. Paul: I think this exposes the deep, deep corruption in U.S. foreign policy, because this review was conducted by a task force led by Eli Ratner, as Dave DeCamp also writes.
He is a China hawk, and he came from the left neocon Center for New American Security think tank.
And we talk a lot about the think tanks because they are critical in perpetuating a militaristic U.S. foreign policy.
And if you scratch a little bit about what is this Center for New American Security, well, guess what?
It's funded in the millions from U.S. arms manufacturers and foreign governments, including Taiwan.
So basically, here you have Taiwan money laundering to get U.S. think tanks to be more hostile toward China.
And you have weapons manufacturers who stand to benefit from beefing up the military, also giving money to this so-called think tank.
And lo and behold, here comes some policy out of it saying, We better ramp up our military against China.
It is so unbelievably corrupt, Dr. Paul.
It's sickening.
Yeah, and we can't say there's one party any better than the other when it comes to the money.
And that's what I read in this recent emphasis on China.
This is a money deal.
It's a big money deal.
It's building weapons like we've always done.
There's no even hint that maybe trading with people is of a benefit.
And then, even in economic policy, when it comes to economic policy, I think a lot of people have it completely wrong that China stole the money and now they're spending this money to undermine us in the marketplace.
And the whole thing is, we've had tremendous advantages having the reserve currency of the world.
And that's been our greatest export is dollars, Federal Reserve notes, buying stuff from a lot of people.
And guess what?
Sometimes they use that money more like capitalists do.
They sort of save it and invest it.
China goes and invests money.
They buy stuff in Africa and all kinds of natural resources.
At the same time, we build our welfare state and we buy weaponry and we do not promote civil liberties.
So there was not much to be encouraged by this.
And I guess the biggest challenge, though, is what I've already mentioned.
And it's not an easy one because the propagandists, just like the propagandists achieved so much for their argument on the coronavirus, that the people were converted to a little bit of common sense to lock down, lockdown.
There's still people that are determined to do that.
But right now, I think the biggest PR battle is to try to convince people that non-intervention with all nations is better than trying to start a war and make things worse.
And that is where they have achieved it.
Just like the man in the street, he walks up.
I want to run for Congress because I hate the Chinese.
There's just too much of that because you know that we'll hear back from some who say, well, you guys are okay and you're pretty good, but you have to hate China if you want my support.
Fortunately, Daniel, we don't have much of that, but we will hear.
We'll hear a few times from our viewers.
It'd be interesting to give, and I blame the media really a lot for this, but it'd be interesting to give people a basic test on very basic issues about China and see how well they do.
You know, it's just about creating blind hatred.
But the other thing, and I guess probably the last thing on China, because we're taking up a lot of time, but I think it's important.
But we both talked about this, another piece by this is the Dave DeCamp Day on RP Liberty Report, but he did another good piece.
U.S. senators fly to Taiwan on military plane angering China.
And again, our justification for starting to act tougher against China is their aggression.
But is it not an act of aggression for a bunch of U.S. members of Congress and senators to jump on a military plane to go to Taiwan, just really kind of putting, you know, putting a fist in China's face.
Imagine if China sent a military plane to Mexico and just put it right in our faces that they were doing this.
You know, it's just so ridiculous.
Well, you know, somebody might argue about exactly the definition of aggression, but it's a very aggressive attitude.
And I like the word provoking.
So much of what we do is provoking, provoking.
You know, this whole idea of our Navy sailing war vessels, you know, real close to their coast.
Oh, technically, we're supposed to be outside the boundary line.
And then the air flying the airplanes over nearby and technically trying to obey the law, but just teaching them a lesson.
And I really believe the best argument for this is how would the American people respond?
I know how they would respond in Texas if the Chinese Navy was in the Gulf of Mexico and, you know, coming up and seeing how whether they can get in the 20-mile mark or the six-mile mark and stay in international water, that wouldn't happen.
But a lot of our people expect it to happen because, you know, I think there's a little bit of a lot of misunderstanding about economics, but China is beating us, you know, in some areas.
American Economic Misunderstandings00:04:49
But that doesn't mean you have to say that the only way they did that was cheating.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, though, there's that on that intellectual property and all those activities.
I bet you both sides participate in a lot of that type of thing.
And if you believe that the free market system is superior to a state-controlled economic system as you do, Dr. Paul, then why would you adopt more of a state-controlled economic system to fight against a state-controlled economic system?
Accept the presumption that it's superior to do that.
If we want to compete with China, we should be more free market than they are.
But I guess we should move on to one other topic, Dr. Paul, if you're ready.
And that's our old friend Fauci.
And I have to say, I was at the gym.
I was on the treadmill yesterday.
And for some reason, I don't know why, I keep going on the treadmill that's under the MSNBC television.
So I get very angry while I'm walking on the treadmill.
But there was Fauci and Chuck Todd, you know, from MSNBC, so fawning and so funny as if he had a rock star on his show.
And there was Fauci, and he said something interesting, Dr. Paul, that I know that you want to comment on.
He said, well, everyone wants to attack Anthony Fauci, but an attack on me is an attack on science, which is about one of the toughest things I've ever heard, right?
That sounds like he's putting himself up as a saint.
You know, you don't attack your saints.
And that is so bad.
And he's so arrogant and so forward on this that you would think people would just get annoyed with his arrogance.
And then by put together the arrogance about lying, you know, most of the time when you get caught in a lie, people will sort of back off a little bit.
And, you know, even the New York Times and a few other places have softened some of this activity.
But I don't think Fauci ever will.
He has too much at stake.
His whole life, you know, his reputation is at stake.
But I think that's not repairable.
I just think he's past that point.
I think too many people understand exactly what he's doing.
I like to watch sometimes these man in the street interviews.
And there was one on TV and it was all anti-Fauci.
The people just didn't like him.
But I also realize that some of those interviews can be designed a bit.
But I do think, though, there's a lot of man in the street arguments now that's the opposite way.
And but of course, the man in the street, if you ask similar questions to get an opinion on China, well, would you sit down here a minute and let's talk about this?
Let's talk about trade and sound money and that sort of thing.
You know, what's funny, Dr. Paul, talk about the man in the street.
I don't very often talk to people in grocery stores.
But somehow I ended up behind a fellow who was very gregarious and he wanted to chat because we were waiting in line.
They were doing a price check.
Maybe I mentioned this.
But I came to him asking me, where do I work?
And I said, well, I work for Ron Paul.
The first thing he said, I love Ron Paul and I love what his son is doing about Sauci.
So this becomes such a lightning rod and people are focusing.
And I just wonder if he's getting a little more nervous.
And that's why he's sounding a little bit more hysterical, because, you know, it's almost more like Les Tasssemois.
You know, the state is me when he says, I am science.
And we know for a fact that even in that Chuck Todd interview, he did admit that he was being deceptive about masks.
He said, I had to tell people that masks are no good because we didn't have enough masks.
So he's admitting there that he's not following the science.
And then while he's saying he's following the science, he's gone on and on after doing everything he can, he could, and we know this from the emails, to debunk the idea that there's a potential lab leak.
And we don't endorse this, but to debunk it publicly, privately, he's admitting it's a possibility.
And now he's saying, well, I knew it all along.
So here's a guy who's always flip-flopping.
And now he says, well, if you criticize me for flip-flopping, you're criticizing science.
Right.
You know, I want to talk a little bit about the virus, but I'm getting ready to close it out.
But we have found this one article which verifies what we've said from the beginning.
Government Fear Mongering00:08:23
And a lot of other people that are much more involved have always argued the case for hydrochloroquine and azithromycin.
And I guess the real problem there is why did the president actually take an opinion on hydrochloroquine that guaranteed that science would be thrown out the window?
But he really is the winner of that debate.
I mean, he was using gut instincts, but he knew he talked to some people and he really believed hydrochloroquine could work.
And now there's a study that comes out that definitely the hydrochloroquine, especially when it's used with azithromycin, is much more beneficial.
And of course, the ventilators and all was proven to be a disaster.
But then in ironectin, it's just, you know, to me, what it brings up, Daniel, is freedom of choice, patient making the choices, the doctors being allowed to practice medicine, the practice, you know, people will say, well, won't he do things?
How do you handle it?
Well, you don't do anything without the patient's permission and with the full revelation.
You know, I could see that, you know, if you know of a drug and it's not approved by the FDA, which really doesn't mean anything now, because that's a political tool, either prohibiting it or pushing it out or subsidizing the drug congress.
But they would do this and accept the fact that these drugs can work.
But the doctor, the patient, can work that.
I wouldn't tell the patient, look, this is not known.
But if somebody has a serious disease and they know how serious it is, I'm willing to try it.
You know, this sort of thing.
But that's not it.
We have the bureaucrats, but they're rich.
They must be smart if they're the richest bureaucrats in the world.
But right now, we have to question his scientific judgment.
Of course, with IOC, maybe people will reassess this and wake up.
And it just, we haven't gotten everybody to take their mask off yet.
And boy, if there's any school, if there's any school in the fall that makes these little kids wear a mask, the parents deserve to be disciplined.
I think they need to take better care of their kids.
Yeah.
Well, this study you make reference to is quite interesting.
And it is a preprint.
It has not yet been peer-reviewed, but it was an observational study on 255 medically, mechanically ventilated COVID patients at the beginning of the pandemic.
And what they studied is how these patients responded to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
And what they found, and again, this is not yet peer-reviewed, it's just come out, but what they found is that survival of ventilated COVID patients was improved by 200% when they were also given hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
And so this goes back to our comments on Fauci.
If you oppose me, you oppose the science.
Well, this kind of looks like science.
They did an observation and they made this conclusion.
And if you remember, Dr. Paul, as you well do, this is at the time when Fauci was bad-melting hydroxychloroquine from here to New Jersey.
You know, I mean, it was the worst thing ever.
So this whole idea that science is me is undermined by actual science that we're learning done according to the scientific method.
You know, we've talked about, we talked about it yesterday about the business of liability.
Who's going to be liable for the injury?
You know, you have the injuries and death that were increased, of course, with the lockdown.
And then there was the economic harm done by the lockdown.
And what about the denial of drugs that could have helped?
Now it looks like it may well have helped, and people weren't allowed to take it.
And doctors, doctors have lost their jobs when they speak out on these things.
Even today now, you can lose a position, even if you might not be the best one in town, a great following science.
But there's all this liability that disappears once you turn it over to the government.
So whether it's social media, what they say and do, or whether it's the pharmaceuticals, they get exemptions.
You can't sue them.
So you've eliminated one of the most powerful restraining efforts that you have in a free market.
And without responsibility, the free market has a struggle.
And then you have to buy influence.
And then you have the lobbyists either getting the laws passed in favor, whether it's banking laws or whether it's FDA laws.
It becomes a money game.
But eventually that will change because the money will become worthless at the rate we're spending and printing it.
Well, I go to the store and shop, Dr. Paul, and it is becoming worthless because I look at the price.
I would just close by thanking all of our listeners and thanks for bearing with us for an audio on the show.
We appreciate taking time out of your day to be with us.
And we hope we've enlightened you a little bit about what's going on and we hope we've instilled some more skepticism, which you probably already have about what the mainstream is doing.
So thanks again for listening.
Dr. Paul, over to you.
Very, very good.
And I want to just close by emphasizing a point I made at the very beginning: is that conditions are improving on all the insanities of the lockdown and all the nonsense that has gone on with COVID.
And because it was getting better, I would assume that the government has to have an enemy to fight.
We always have to have a monster to slay.
And now they're getting to be more domestic monsters.
It used to be said the original intent of that statement was that our military always goes look for monsters overseas.
And we mentioned that.
We're trying to stir up trouble with China.
And people get mixed up on exactly what non-interventionist foreign policy is.
But they're always looking for another enemy.
And the main reason isn't to get to the bottom line and understand science, it's to promote special interests by fear-mongering.
And just think about all the fear.
Daniel and I worked together closely, you know, since the beginning of this century, trying to keep our country out of those wars in the Middle East.
And it was always, you know, the American people would be with this in the early years, but then the propagandists came out and they would develop all this fear.
And that's what this coronavirus thing was all about, building up fear.
And there's still people so fearful about that.
I saw a really silly story yesterday.
I don't know whether it was true.
They showed a picture of a potential, I think, a candidate for mayor of New York City.
And they said he went in there a year ago when it was announced to be a pandemic.
They said, we think he might still be there and never left his hiding place.
So we have to put that in perspective.
And that's the most important thing because governments will notoriously stir up fear and then use it for the benefit of the special interests.
And they forget all about what a proper role of government ought to be.
And that is very simple.
The government should be there to protect and enhance the personal liberties of all individuals, because we believe here at the report that if you want a better chance for peace and prosperity, you will have a position of non-intervention in economic affairs, personal affairs, as well as foreign affairs.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.