Biden Claims Bombing Syria And Iraq Is A 'Defensive' Move. What?
Over the weekend President Biden ordered US airstrikes on Syrian and Iraqi territory. The Administration claims that bombing countries 6,000 miles away who could not pose a threat to the US if they wanted was a "defensive" move. One problem: US troops are illegally occupying Syria and the bombing was unequivocally condemned by the Iraqi government. So..."defense"...or aggression? Also today, new polls and studies on Covid and US trust in the media. Don't miss today's Liberty Report.
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host Daniel.
Good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Good, doing quite well.
And looking at world events this morning, a little activity over the weekend, a little practice here and there in case war breaks out.
The weaponry is always there.
There's always a justification to expect another war going on.
Sometimes the people who are promoting it aren't necessarily gun-ho of all the shooting and killing, but they need a little activity because the budget's coming up.
They're messing around with the budget.
And the military-industrial complex, you know, it's the prerogative of Republicans and Democrats.
All weapons in the United States are built in all the states.
All the politicians care.
Besides, they want peace.
They want peace, and you can only have peace through bombs.
And this is what it is.
So this weekend, not that we should be surprised, but Biden gave an order to drop some bombs.
And it's in an area of the world and even the part of the country where Donald Trump was sort of involved.
And that's Syria.
Of course, there was a time when we were sort of egging Trump on because he said, let's come home, let's get out of here.
And he got into trouble over, and they rallied into Congress and they said, no, we can't leave, we can't leave.
But toward the end, once the dust was sort of settling, Trump said, well, we have to stay a little bit.
We have to protect our oil.
And because Syria did have some oil.
And, you know, ironically, really, can you imagine?
That's where a little this activity is, is near the oil.
And so Biden gave this order to do some bombing.
And it was for national security reasons.
It was for this whole thing of defending our country, a bit of an overstretch.
And I would think, you know, when Democrats get together and they condemn outright every single thing Trump does, they're excessive and extreme.
But some of it is true, too.
But when the Democrats do it, it's just ordinary routine stuff.
I mean, there are people who still, including myself being hopeful, at least when a liberal Democrat gets in like Obama, maybe they'll be different.
Maybe they will be progressive.
Maybe they will be less warmongering.
But Obama, I think what he set up as standard was atrocious.
And now Biden, who knows Biden?
Biden, I don't even know if he has an opinion about this.
But somebody who's pulling the strings and tells him what phone calls to make, they're still in a warmonger process.
And then so he decided that right now the militia is out there.
It's endangering us.
It's hard for us to have defense and we have to protect our security.
Really, they have to protect the oil and stirring up a little trouble.
We'll make sure that the weapons industry continue.
So this has made the news and there's a lot of back and forth, but it's in an area that, you know, remember how Obama declared this war in some way.
Assaud has to go, Assad has to go.
And they sort of lost that part of the war.
And yet it continues.
It means that the danger has not dissipated, even though it's not been in the news.
And we were sort of conditioned to talk a little bit more about COVID.
And we still will talk about the principles that have been destroyed under the lockdown and what happened with COVID.
But right now, we want to visit a little bit about just the danger of what's going on now and the danger that exists, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.
Would we have been shocked if something like this had happened under Hillary?
We probably said same old stuff.
Now it's happening in many ways, same old stuff.
Well, the U.S. struck the border between Syria, between Syria and Iraq on Sunday on Biden's orders, supposedly we're supposed to think.
They killed at least one child and they wounded three other civilians.
But I'm sure those lives don't matter to Biden and his people.
The target of the attack were a couple of militias, one of them being Qatayib Saeed al-Suhada, and I'm not an expert in Arabic, so my pronunciation I'm sure is wrong.
But the point, Dr. Paul, is that these are Shia militia that were created around the time that ISIS overtook Syria.
I mean, Iraq.
These are Iraqi militias that are fully integrated into the Iraqi government military structure.
So it's not a ragtab group of people.
They are part of the Iraqi military.
They were created in 2014 when the Iraqi military, which we spent billions of dollars to create and train, literally crumbled before our eyes when ISIS and al-Qaeda came to the country.
So these are Shia militia.
They didn't take fancy to the idea of being ruled by radical Sunnis like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
So they said, hey, let's get together and form this militia and save the country.
And that's what they did.
So essentially, the people that Biden bombed are people who were created for the purpose of fighting and destroying ISIS.
The justification for bombing them is that because they're Shia, they are automatically Iran-backed.
And so therefore, legitimate targets.
So we are killing the enemy of our supposed enemy and patting ourselves on the back for doing so.
Not us, but Biden and his people.
There's been a little bit of discussion about authorization, but that's just discussion generally on.
But the point was made in one of the articles that there wasn't an authorization to use military force.
They didn't cite it, which was a dangerous signal, I think, because they don't even have pretend that they're getting authorization.
But they did indicate that they did have some constitutional authorization.
And that's this whole thing about the commander-in-chief.
He's like, I'm the commander-in-chief, and you know, the Nixon approach to I'm the president type of thing.
So they assume that they can, it justifies their position, so they have no qualms about it.
And that's pretty weak.
But when you use bombs and forces and move our troops and protect oil and continue wars in the various countries, that's illegal use of military force, should be recognized as being unconstitutional and illegal.
But the real problem that we face trying to present a more constitutional position where we're looking for peace, not war, both parties are very supportive of this.
They pretend, I mean, there'll be arguments.
The Republicans are going to come out and maybe condemn this.
Not enough bombs.
Sometimes that happens too.
But they will go back and forth and pretend there's a difference.
But long term, there's no difference.
And you've made the point so often about the military industrial complex and how they operate and what they do.
And it's very, very bipartisan.
And I don't know what the strongest, most powerful lobby is in Washington.
But they're near at the top.
Near the top.
Well, you suggested in Glenn Greenwald, and we have an excerpt on the RonPaulInstitute.org website today.
But he did say, as you say, they don't even try to justify it anymore.
It's like they're not even phoning it in.
But the justification, we can actually, if we can put up that first click, first clip.
But here's John Kirby, the press secretary of the Pentagon.
He said, at President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening, that would be Sunday, conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities uned by Iraq-backed militia.
So on the international law, they felt they were covered by saying, well, this is the right to self-defense.
Well, you don't get to claim self-defense when you're occupying someone else's country.
The troops are there illegally in Syria, and also, I would say, probably illegally in Iraq, the Iraqi government having voted last year to expel the U.S. and the U.S. said, we're not leaving.
So the idea that it's self-defense, and I think it was Caitlin Johnstone who pointed out, if you break into someone's house and the guy tries to get you to leave and you killed him because you said, well, I thought the house was mine, that's not justifiable.
And then domestic law, as you say, Article 2 of the Constitution, the authority of the president to protect U.S. troops in Iraq.
Well, if they're not there legally in the first place, it's a little bit rough to justify it in that respect.
Yes, and a lot of people don't realize that we helped create this monster from the very beginning.
You know, back in the early part of the century when they were talking about going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and all these other places, that, you know, taking Iraq, which was a Sunni country, even though the majority were Shia, and giving it to the Shia, why wouldn't this complicated mess over there get worse since it just happens that the Iranians are Shia?
And, you know, even what we try to sort out, I think there are some basic rules you can expect.
There are sympathies between Shia and Shia.
And that little war, internal war within the Muslim world, that's been going on for a long time.
Well, you know, a lot of critics of the war, you know, back then were saying, ha ha, how dumb the Pentagon is.
You know, the unintended victors of the invasion of Iraq.
We're the Shia, we're Iran.
You know, how dumb, how dumb.
I didn't really fall for that.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, Dr. Paul.
I almost think it was by design because that guarantees the war will be eternal there.
You know, if you pit one side against the other, you push ones.
And we did that through the 80s with the Iran-Iraq war.
We just wanted them to kill each other.
So they're city.
I'm a cynic.
The trouble is, is you're so often right.
But one key part, Dr. Paul, I want to put a couple of things in.
We can put the next one up.
This is Glenn Greenwald.
This is an important point, a very important point.
And Greenwald says, one of Biden's excuses for why it's permissible for him to have ordered the bombing raid on Iraq and Syria is that the U.S. military is there at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
And let's go to the next one.
And this punctuates what Greenwald says.
This is the spokesman for the Pentagon coalition there.
He says, we are in Iraq at the invitation of the government of Iraq.
The mission is to defeat ISIS and remnants of ISIS, which is weird because they just bombed the people fighting ISIS.
Let's go to the next one.
And here's the spokesman again.
He says the U.S. forces in Syria are under multiple rocket attacks.
They are acting in self-defense.
So Pentagon, as Greenwald said, says, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
Therefore, don't criticize when we make these attacks.
However, the Iraqi government has a little bit different of a perspective, and we can put up that next one.
This is a quote.
This is a quote from the Prime Minister's Office of Iraq.
Quote, we condemn the U.S. air attack that targeted a site last night on the Iraqi-Syrian border, which represents a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.
That's what the Iraqi government says, the prime minister says.
So the idea that we are acting as a proxy for the Iraqi government is blatantly false is a pure lie.
My goodness, you just stated a few facts that would indicate that the policy of this just come home.
Support that.
I bet you still, if you had a good poll done in the United States, described a little bit about what's going on, and that we would not be less safe by just coming home.
I would imagine most Americans would say, yes, just come home, you know, overall.
But, you know, with Greenwald's article appeared on Zero Hedge, I think that headline really says a whole lot and summarizes it.
Greenwald, Biden's lawless bombing of Iraq and Syria only served the weapons industries funding both parties.
So that is a brief summary of one of the strongest motivations.
And then the rest are a lot of excuses and hyperbole.
It's just, you know, trying to pacify people.
And it will be, the hawks in Washington, the ones that exist both in the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, they do not get persuaded easily.
They are not going to say, you know, you guys make a lot of sense.
I think I'm going to become the only person I know that really had a dramatic enlightenment in that direction was our friend LeBalter.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, Walter was with all the militants and Tennessee that existed, and he finally saw the light and just said, this is not good for our country.
And he represented tens of thousands of military people in North Carolina.
And they came alongside him too eventually.
The only word you can use to describe this, Dr. Paul, is corruption.
It's deeply, deeply corrupted.
Military establishment does not act in the Americans' national interest.
And Greenwald touches on it in the article.
He talks about Lloyd Austin.
He came to become Secretary of Defense directly as a board member of Raytheon, the people who made the missiles that they probably used.
So his buddies are cashing their checks, and he's probably going to go back and cash his check when he's done.
It's deep corruption.
And Greenwald also points out, well, most Americans are trying to scrape through with a couple of jobs, and inflation is eating away their salaries and eating away their lifestyle.
These people that work for the military industry are living high on the hog.
They're doing extraordinarily well.
And I just wish that's the only way I think that Americans are going to wake up that this military doesn't serve us.
It serves a small group of elites when they realize that they're having their pockets picked.
You know, for the moment, the bombs aren't dropping.
Homeland Security Concerns00:02:50
There weren't that many compared to what we have done in the past.
But there's still the accusations and the threats.
Swift revenge.
We're going to come back and get you.
The militias are talking.
And, you know, it's not going to go away.
And it might even get settled down.
We might say, you know, next week, nothing more has happened.
They say, why is Ron Daniel worry about this stuff?
There's not much activity going on.
But of course, we've been concerned about it for a long, long time.
You know, probably 20 years since the Middle East was blown up by our president, George W. You know, he was the one that really stirred this mess up, and it's there, and it's not going to go away.
So I wish the critics who would say you guys worry too much and there's no bombs dropping today, I hope they're right that we've overemphasized it.
But unfortunately, I think that long term it's underemphasized because it's the policy, the policy hasn't changed, the policies are there, it's endorsed by powerful political leaders and powerful arms industry people, the military industrial complex.
There's a lot of support there.
The deep state, it fits into their scenario and the whole works.
Authoritarianism is alive.
Well, when you come to the back doors, the back room control of our government.
The thing is, anyone who supports the U.S. military right now should be clamoring for them to be brought home.
They have no mission in Iraq and Syria any longer.
They never had a legitimate mission in Syria.
Anyone who supports them, anyone who's concerned about them being killed, should demand that they be brought home immediately.
And of course, we don't want any American to be hurt over there.
But we also understand that people feel justified because they are on their home soil.
They're defending what they view as their homeland.
And we've seen after 20 years in Afghanistan, we talked about this before the show, people are not dissuaded from that view.
They have a sense of the soil they grew up in, and they'll train the next generation.
And that is a lot more powerful than weapons lobbies in Washington, D.C.
I think that homeland motivation is very, very powerful.
And it was made for years in understanding our own revolution.
How did a few of our colonists defeat the most powerful army in the world?
So, no, the homeland is something, and there's probably nobody has been more patient and willing to defend their homeland over many, many years than the Afghans.
And they continue to do it.
Pandemic Beliefs Divide American People00:10:54
And I saw one story the other day.
It can't be funny, but it caught my attention because it was a member of the Taliban.
And he was saying, I didn't realize we could take over so much so fast, you know, because there's supposed to be a backing off.
But you know, we're not going to leave there.
I mean, there's pipelines to be concerned about.
There's the military-industrial complex, but there's always this pretense.
But give them an inch, and somebody who's been sitting there waiting and waiting and dying for taking over their own homeland, they're going to react.
And I think that someday the American people will have to wake up because who knows, we may go broke one of these days and we won't be able to afford it.
Yeah, and then they'll blame us for it, right?
Yeah.
Well, we want to talk a little bit.
We've got a couple of sort of, I wouldn't say minor stories, but secondary stories that are important.
And one is something that caught our attention this morning, which is a brand new survey from Gallup, the Gallup Organization, which I used to work for, I have to say, looking at Americans' views of the pandemic now that we're, what, 14, 15, 16 months into it.
And it is rather interesting, and I think it does underscore, and we talked about it before, the political nature of Americans' perceptions of this virus.
And if we can put up the next one, here's the operative poll.
Overall, it's a minority that says that the pandemic is over.
But when you get into party identification, this is critical.
57% of Republicans believe the pandemic is over.
And the Democrat supporting people, 4%.
57% to 4.
How, Dr. Paul, can there be such a huge gap in perception about this virus?
You know, and it really is talking about science here, too, because they argue, follow the science, follow the science.
And that is such a mixed up debate going on.
But in some ways, and since we lean strongly toward the position that the pandemic was way overblown, and that they think that it was very misleading.
So I would say that, yeah, I certainly lean toward it.
But it's the science.
What did they tell us that was untruthful in reporting this?
And so I would think that this is not a surprise, this polling, but it's sort of sad because what they're doing, dissecting not only the politics of it, which is getting worse every day, in spite of the fact that the big things are always agreed to, but it's also this whole idea that the big fight over this was whose scientists are you going to believe about all this pandemic.
So I guess they need a little bit more education.
Or something.
But I clicked this other slide because I think it's fascinating.
I think this next slide severely undermines the number we saw in the first slide, which is that only 4% of Democrats think it's over.
And let's look at this next slide.
This is really incredible.
This is Americans' optimism about coronavirus situation.
Look at this.
Look at it go up radically since even just April and May.
89% of Americans are optimistic.
So that means they believe it's getting a lot or a little better.
They believe it's getting better.
So the Democrats at 4% thinking it's over, seems to me like there's a huge disconnect.
And I think, I hate to say it, I think it can be explained by the fact that it's become a cult.
It's become a religion, the religion of Fauciism, and they're desperately trying to cling to it, even as they see all around them places like Florida and places like Texas and places that have ditched the masks, they've ditched the mandates.
You don't hardly even see masks anymore, believe it or not, around here.
They've ditched it and nothing has happened, even with the scarients called the Delta.
So they're still desperately trying to cling to that kernel of hope that their religion is not false.
Right.
For me, they use the pandemic as the excuse on the bigger motivations that they have and the lockdown and all this activity.
But the real problem, the way I see it, is this wokeism stuff.
Because I think that's the powerful message, and that's where the cultural Marxists are playing hardball.
And they're always prepared, and they've influenced now.
To me, it's shocking how much cultural and social and educationally they have infiltrated and how they were activated.
I imagine probably some of them, we never believed the American people would roll over so fast.
Well, maybe what we should do is get them to be really shocked and the American people would decide to roll back again and roll them back because of, you know, they are starting to recognize, but it's the political party thing that divises.
But it's also, I think people, you know, are sick and tired of the lockdown and that is going on.
And they say, too many masks and all this.
But I tell you what, wokeism is around this cancellation and punishment and passports and the next virus.
That's going to exist because of the influence that the theoreticians have had on our institutions in all cultures, even in our religious institutions.
It was shocking to me because I thought the science was so weak that the churches were literally closed down, something that the Soviets and the Nazis never were able to achieve.
And somebody said, well, you've got to protect the people, that argument.
So there's some information here as astounding as that is, that it's split by the parties.
I guess I'm not too, too surprised, but I'd like to narrow that and make it much more evenly divided that about 75% of the people are going to realize this thing's over.
This thing's over.
It's time to quit, and it's time to figure out what the principles are that will prevent it from happening again.
Yeah, well, thankfully some churches didn't roll over.
I know my church, St. Jude's Shrine in Stafford, Texas, did not close the doors ever.
So there are some brave people.
But who to blame for all this?
And I would say we should blame the media because the media is the one that did this.
And the good news, and this leads into our next story, is that Americans are blaming the media.
There's a new comprehensive Reuters Institute study out, and we put something up on the Ron Paul Institute website last week about it.
But the U.S. media is the least trustworthy media in the entire world.
Only 29% of Americans trust their own media.
That's incredible.
You know, it's almost like somebody fudged this.
The people who don't want to believe this, this was concocted.
But, you know, I think it's great because I think it probably is true.
I'm not totally surprised.
No, anyway, I am a little bit surprised.
I didn't know that, but it's very encouraging because first you have to question the information that you're getting.
And maybe that's why these numbers are getting better, the number of people who are sick and tired of it all, you know, and they want to get back to a more normal life.
But to question the media, I think it's fantastic.
But I wonder if that applies to social media as well.
I don't know whether they were involved in the polling, but they should be because that's where people are getting more information than the regular television media.
So I think it's an assessment that people do wake up and they should act upon this.
I think that the politicians have to recognize this too because they act on different principles and it's usually self-centered and political and partisan.
And we can put up that next clip.
It's about this topic.
It's from the Poynter Institute reporting on this poll from the Reuters Institute.
I guess we don't have the clips, unfortunately.
But the question is why, why is the media so distrusted?
Four years of Russia gate, false reporting, the bounty stories carried by virtually all major media, totally, totally fake and discredited.
The story of the insurrection, which is falling apart, fake.
Here's something else.
Silence over the fact.
I know you saw this over the weekend, Dr. Paul, though we didn't talk about it.
The chief witness against Assange, he said over the weekend that he lied.
Everything he said was a lie about Assange being involved in stealing these secrets.
The media did not report it at all.
Unbelievable.
COVID reporting for the last year and a half, totally false, totally politicized.
So why do Americans not trust the media?
Why is it the least trusted among the countries surveyed?
I think the answer is obvious.
You know, in this age of electronic media, the social media, and running all 24 hours a day, it's been harmful in some ways because the gullible hear it and see it and they get converted.
But maybe the reversal will even be faster when they totally reject it.
Look how long it took the American people to really, really question and disbelieve everything the media was saying about the Kennedy assassination.
Now, 75 or 80% of the people don't believe that the scenario that has been passed out, that Oswald did it all by himself.
And I think maybe this is the case.
All those instances that you just mentioned, I think that people will hear this, and maybe they will move more rapidly in the direction of demanding more honesty in the media.
Maybe someday there's going to be one of the bad guys in the media that has been nothing but pure lying propaganda will wake up and they will have, and they have hired Glenn Greenwald to be a journalist for them or something like that.
Kids Dying From Vaccines00:05:45
So I think we have to cross our fingers, but we need to encourage them.
And I guess the most responsibility we have is doing our best to go through this and find out who is leveling with us and what can be done instead of just closing people out and say you don't have any choices and the world is going to come and end.
You're going to die if you're doing this.
Some people just hold up in their homes and the worst place to be because they were told that millions and millions.
Remember at the very beginning, millions of people would die?
You know, people did die, but a lot of people are dying now from getting too many vaccines.
It reminds me of those Japanese soldiers who hit on some island for 40 years because they thought the war was still on.
But I know you wanted to mention this one, and I did some research, and I have a surprise twist at the end.
Oh, okay.
Unfortunately, how did you do this?
Well, this is a story.
I've heard of this group called Make a Wisp Foundation.
My image of it was pretty favorable.
I didn't know much detail.
But they're in the news this weekend because they took a position and said they will not help terminally ill kids unless their entire family is vaccinated and the kids.
And we don't want that type of program anywhere anyway.
I mean, there's not very many time that you lock people up and you have to have a vaccination in order to go to a ball game, this sort of thing.
But this just seemed, this hit a chord with a lot of people who think, why are you doing this to the kids?
Once again, it's the kids again.
Why are you forcing these kids to have vaccinations and wear masks in school longer than anybody else?
But this is a surprise.
I hope the news that got out there, I don't know what's going to happen to the leadership there or whether they will ever admit they made a mistake, but that doesn't happen very often.
Well, I have some good news, Dr. Paul.
In fact, it says after a massive backlash on this story, they changed their tune.
They're saying that these poor kids who, as you know, are permanently ill, these poor kids are not going to have to take the shot as their final act to get a final wish.
But it does, and I think there might be some more backlash.
I don't think this is enough.
I think Richard Davis, the CEO of Make a Wish, is going to undergo some scrutiny.
From what I've read, his salary seems a little bit disproportionate to a charity of that sort.
So he may actually have really stepped into the proverbial, you know what, by doing this.
But the good news is that they're not going to bully these poor families, suffering families, around with some hypodermics.
It still proves the point that we make frequently.
The attitude of the people, the prevailing attitude, has a lot to do with what the politicians do.
Yes, we know how powerful they are behind the scenes and all the lobbyists and the Federal Reserve and all this stuff.
But still, if there's a prevailing attitude that is catching on and overwhelms, you know, the control of the media, and you hear a story like this, you know, there's still a lot of goodness out there and sees the shortcomings of that.
And I think that that's really helped us with the school kids.
I think the parents going to those school board meetings and these town hall meetings have been tremendously helpful when the parents finally woke up because they had been living with this at home and dealing with it.
And even with my own family, there was some resistance with the grandkids.
They just didn't like it.
And of course, the neatest picture was, I think it was in Israeli school.
And they say, kids, no more masks.
Remember?
And you think they didn't have an emotion or an opinion about masks in school?
If they thought they were exposing themselves to danger, they were exposing themselves to a little bit of freedom.
That's what this whole message we're talking about is people to wake up and find out that if you rely on a freedom that you can make your own choices, life will be better for you.
That is where you're more likely to achieve the peace and prosperity that I think most people really want.
Yeah.
Well, I'm closing.
Unfortunately, without the clips, it's not going to be punctuated as much.
But I really want to bring up the issue of the deep corruption of the social media companies.
And this is a very concrete example.
Last week, Adam Dick, our senior fellow, wrote a piece based on the World Health Organization's own website where it said, quote, children should not be vaccinated for the moment.
And it had a rationale.
We talked about that in the show last week.
It was on the website.
Adam wrote about it.
He linked directly to the WHO.
Well, Facebook pulled that story off of Facebook, pulled it, and I noticed we had a warning today.
This Facebook post is no longer available because it is missing context.
So they attacked us, they pulled our post down, even though at the time that Adam wrote it, he cited the exact citation that said children should not be vaccinated.
Because a couple of days later, I guess, the WHO put in a more nuanced, there was no new studies.
Nothing new happened in, quote, the science.
But they put in a more nuanced definition, supposedly at the behest of the U.S. government, et cetera, Fauci, even perhaps.
So then we get dinged because we report something that's absolutely objectively factually true at the time because three days later they changed their tune.
That is corruption.
It is.
And we have to recognize what's going on, but it's not enough for us to say, throw in the towel, we can't do anything about it.
The Power of Truth00:00:45
We can, we have, and we see it.
When the truth gets out, conditions change, people's attitudes change.
And right now, I think there's a lot more truth coming out, and people's attitudes are changing.
So therefore, that is the answer to it.
But if you look at the problems we're facing today, you know, the more I look and read history, even ancient history, the more I understand a lot of these basic human problems of truth and, you know, right and wrong, those issues have been around for a long time, and maybe that's what life is all about.
But we have to deal with it because I still remain on the optimistic side that if the truth gets out, we will win in the end.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.