It appears as if some kind of explosion blew three huge holes in the NordStream I and II pipelines near Danish waters. Massive leaks are showing up on the surface of the Baltic Sea. Whodunnit? Would Washington blow up Russia's pipeline? Germany? Russia? Also today, the Democrats have become the party of war. Finally: Another $12 billion for Ukraine snuck into "must-pass" spending bill.
Watch the Liberty Report LIVE Every weekday at 12pm EST on Rumble!
https://rumble.com/RonPaulLibertyReport
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel Ack Adams, our co-host, Daniel.
Good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing fine.
Every day.
Doing better than they are over in Germany and a few other places.
Such a sad story.
We're going to start off with talking about, you know, an event that could be, it is, already a very serious matter because we've been following the Ukrainian episode and NATO.
And all of a sudden now, I've always said that sanctions, you know, are acts of war.
We better be careful, but nobody accepts this.
Sometimes the most peaceful type of progressives would say, oh, let's have sanctions that we don't have to fight a war.
And I keep saying, sanctions are war, that's a violation, or a blockade, or, you know, isolationism, this kind of stuff where you can't trade.
And this is exactly what has happened here.
The big announcement today was a couple bombs probably went off.
And it looks like it's been pretty well established that these were explosions to stop Nord Stream.
And this is to accelerate this contest between, you know, in the articles I read, they didn't talk a contest between Russia and NATO.
And it's not exactly that, but that's where it started.
And NATO is indirectly involved, but the immediate groups that are involved are the people who were going to benefit the most.
Europeans, especially Germany, was going to benefit the most.
I thought, well, this is good.
They tend to fight with each other.
You know, why don't they buy from each other and get a best deal?
And there's a lot of different reasons why that didn't come apart.
One, I put some blame on the responsibility that the European Union hasn't assumed for themselves.
And of course, I look at the interference of NATO.
They set this stage, you know, with the coup and getting rid of an elected leader.
And now there's a big fight going on.
And it's in the age of a correction going on, which is worldwide and is historic because there's never been a disruption of trade and the nonsense that went through with COVID on top of an effort to make corrections by the marketplace for all the inflation coming from the last recession.
So it's a monetary thing.
It's a freedom issue.
It's a trade issue.
But this is a war issue.
And this, you know, we talk about trade wars and in a way we make people know a trade war, it doesn't mean that they're shooting at each other.
Now, this is a war and it's getting to look like a lot different than a trade war.
It's much more serious.
It involves trade and getting along with people.
But it remains to be seen.
The market's got shaken up a little bit.
But I would say the valuation by the markets were modest but not extreme.
You know, oil went up a little bit, but it's been down a little bit.
So I don't think it was representing at least the market people.
And they're usually pretty good.
But that could change why we sit here on maybe evaluation of what's happening and retaliation.
But I guess the first real question is who did it and what was the motive?
Yeah.
You know, and that's what you do when you have a local murder.
Who did it and what was his motive?
Or they ask, what was the motive and then we'll find out who did it.
And right now we have to think about that.
But I have to admit, maybe you have the answer and know exactly who did it.
But I don't know exactly, but we can sort of speculate and make assumptions because somebody in charge is going to have to make some major decisions on how they're going to handle this and keeping it from expanding into a much, much more hot war.
Who Did It?00:04:51
Yeah, you're right.
This is a classic whodunit.
And there are, you know, it's like the game clue.
There are plenty of suspects out there.
You have to look at their motives, who might benefit.
We don't know.
We don't pretend to know.
But going back to the timeline, so yesterday early it was reported that there was a detection of a massive pressure drop in Nord Stream I.
And so the question is, what happened?
What happened?
Well, we find out today that it's not only a pressure drop in Nord Stream 1, but as you point out, it's leaks in 1 and 2.
So if there was one problem in part of Nord Stream 1, who knows what that could have been.
But the chance that it's a coincidence when they both have these problems is unlikely.
And it's impossible.
Let's look at a couple of things.
First of all, the leak is massive.
According to Danish Armed Forces, it measures about a kilometer in diameter.
The smaller circle is approximately 200 meters wide.
These are massive, massive gas leaks on the Baltic Sea.
Let's go to the next one, please.
And here's a map.
This should give you a sense of Nord Stream 1 and 2.
Russia, you see Russia and Germany.
The gas was going from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea.
Let's go to the next one.
This is a little bit more of a close-up.
And this will tell you exactly where those three explosions were found near Danish territorial waters, but not within them, outside the zone.
Let's go to the next one now.
Let's think about, so the Swedish broadcaster SVT reported that the Swedish National Seismic Network has detected two underwater explosions.
One of the explosions had a magnitude of 2.3 and was registered as many as 30 measuring stations in southern Sweden.
Let's do the next one because this is a Swedish Media Express.
It is a clear explosion registered in the Baltic Sea near the last discovered Nord Stream leak.
Seismologist, it was not an earthquake.
So that's basically where we are right now.
Who could have done it?
Well, there are a few possibilities, Dr. Paul.
One is possibly Russia, and that's, of course, what Ukraine is claiming.
No surprise there.
It's hard to see the motive in them blowing up their own pipeline, however, unless it's a massive false flag.
That seems pretty dumb.
Germany, it's hard to imagine Germany would have done that because this is their last lifeline as they're facing a cold winter.
It is possible.
That leaves the UK.
They've been extremely hawkish toward Russia.
They may be worried about Germany getting cold feet about holding the line as they freeze over the winter.
Poland has explicitly threatened the pipeline.
That's a possibility.
It's hard to imagine that Poland would have acted without the knowledge of the U.S. or its NATO partners then.
And then you have the United States.
And you can say, well, that seems pretty unlikely because it's literally an act of war.
I mean, if the Russians blew up our pipelines in Alaska, we would probably go to war.
I mean, we've said it explicitly.
But the evidence I would suggest for the U.S. comes from the words of the Biden administration itself.
Now this is going around on Twitter, but there were two threats made by the Biden administration.
We have those two video clips.
If we can listen to the first one, this is Biden himself promising to shut down Nord Stream if we can cue that one up and listen to it.
I think it's about 30 seconds.
Here's Biden himself back in February.
Let me answer the first question first.
If Germany, if Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.
We will bring an end to it.
But how will you do that?
Exactly.
Since the project and control of the project is.
Put the whole thing on, please, the whole clip.
I promise you we'll be able to do it.
Let me answer the first question.
And now the next one is Victoria Newland, who was the architect of the coup in 2014.
She said a very similar thing.
Let's play that whole clip too, please.
it's about 20 some seconds with regard to Nord Stream 2 we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies and I want to be clear with you today If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
Looking at Nord Stream 200:15:39
So two threats from the U.S. government, that doesn't, obviously it's not a smoking gun necessarily, but if it's the case, it's an astonishingly reckless move.
I mean, if I were thinking about, I mean, I don't want to put too much of a pressure on this, but I mean, if I were thinking of articles of impeachment, blowing up Russian pipelines is probably something that you'd want to impeach a president for.
Under the circumstances, some people will say, well, who's going to take his place?
That's a real dilemma.
But that shows you the conditions of our political system here.
You know, it's pretty well known.
I understood now for the little bit of, they've gained a little bit of information.
This wasn't an accident.
We always warn about sanctions and teasing and provoking and all that.
An accident can happen.
We didn't mean to do that.
We meant to just scare you a little bit.
We didn't mean to do this.
I don't think it was an accident.
It is a natural event.
They've already, and you mentioned it in your opening, this was not an earthquake.
And they have scientific evidence to show that there's no evidence for that.
And then the false flag is, I guess, exists, but I don't think that's likely going to be the answer.
And this is, the more this drags on, and when they start seeing the ramifications, you know, what does it take to fix one of these things?
You know, and the only thing that crossed my mind on the whole of this, how could they, if you can't get along and you can't have trade and you can't use trade to war avoid the wars, what could a country do to have more energy without depending on pipelines running a thousand miles?
And my answer is just legalize nuclear power, you know, because nuclear power is dangerous.
This is dangerous too.
And I've always had some sympathy for nuclear because, you know, all energy is dangerous.
And I always use the example, they use a nuclear power in a submarine and people sleep next to those reactors.
But just think, you know, you could warm a country with a nuclear reactor, you know, and it still exists.
As a matter of fact, it's coming back.
Some people, even the environmentalists, are starting to think about it.
But it's this dependency on and this planning.
You know, you need the United Nations and the UN, and you need all the military-industrial complex.
Now, that's one thing we haven't mentioned yet.
The military-industrial complex must be thinking about what's going on here.
They might say, huh, well, I guess we have a job.
We'll still be working.
We haven't lost our job.
Who knows what?
But it's complex, and it is important that we find out.
But like you say, it may end up where some people come around to that agreement.
This is serious.
This is an act of war, and we can't let it stand by.
And somebody's going to have to retaliate.
Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, in all seriousness, the U.S. needs to clarify immediately that they didn't do it.
They need to go to the Russians with the evidence saying, look, this is proof that we didn't do it.
Because, you know, this is serious business.
If the U.S. has attacked Russian infrastructure, the Russians may very well attack U.S. infrastructure.
And I kind of have a stake in this because we live in the part of the country that has the biggest refining capacity, the biggest, the center of the chemical industry.
Basically, everything is here that Russia would want to ruin if it wants to ruin our infrastructure.
So to provoke them, if the U.S. did it, and God, I hope they didn't, that will provoke a response.
I think that may be the last straw that provokes a response.
And it's, I mean, honestly, it's terrifying.
But, you know, if you're looking for an understanding of this, and you played a very important clip by Biden, I mean, if you were a Russian listening to that, that was about as threatening and intimidating as you could get.
He says there will be no pipeline if you march in.
And essentially, the Russians have marched in, and they're having the final blow to it.
And it was in the news yesterday, you know, that the territories now close, you know, along the border in eastern Ukraine.
Once they have the referendum, they are Russia.
You know, that's a technicality that holds true and they will pay attention to it.
But in a way, it seems a little silly.
They're there and all that, but it will be used.
It will be used because all these kind of wars, they pretend they follow international laws and decorum and all.
And, you know, if they don't want to, they don't have to.
So they were looking at this.
And I think what he said there, if you come across here, there will be, wasn't it exactly saying, there will be no pipeline.
Yeah, and they said, well, how could you do that?
It's a German.
Germans run the thing.
He said, don't worry, we'll do it.
We'll take out the pipeline.
It's kind of a dumb thing to say unless he means it.
And that's a whole other issue.
We'll have a couple more clips on this before we move on.
The next one is just, as I suggested earlier, obviously Kiev believes that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
It can kind of discount them because they kind of have an interest in this.
Nevertheless, it's not an impossibility that Russia would have done it.
But here's an interesting one.
This is a bonus clip.
When we get that queued up, we can put that up.
But this is a German journalist who is extremely, extremely close and extremely in favor of the Ukrainian government.
So he's absolutely anti-Russia.
He even has a Ukrainian flag in his description.
He said, this is very interesting.
Whoever did this is attacking not only Gazprom, but also Germany.
This is an act of state terrorism against our critical infrastructure, the Nord Stream pipeline, which supplies gas to millions of homes and thousands of businesses.
So Julian Rupke, who, again, is very pro-Ukrainian as we can get, he recognizes that this is also an attack on Germany.
So it's hard to believe as dumb as their current chancellor is that they would attack themselves.
That's it.
But it remains to be seen, but I don't know who the investigators are going to be.
You know, when we have commissions and investigations of domestic problems here, of significant events, it's usually just a cover-up.
But I don't think this one will fall into that category.
I don't think you're going to have an international commission have an investigation and think you're going to get to the truth.
And that's what we're looking for.
But the truth will build, and I think we'll finally figure this out.
But what's going to happen in between that?
You know, how long are we going to wait and how much expansion of the war is going to happen?
But this is an act of war that has occurred, and we can't deny it.
So it'll be touch and go now for a while.
I did have one more point I wanted to make.
I almost forgot if we could put up that next clip.
First, it's a comment by oilprice.com.
Because the U.S. immediately said, don't worry, Germany, we're going to take up the slack.
We're going to ship out some liquid gas over to you.
Go backwards one, please.
So oilprice.com, renowned oil and gas trader Pierre Auterland says that Europe can replace a large part of Russian natural gas with LNG, liquid natural gas, which we do a lot of here in this part of Texas.
To which Zero Heads replied, and then watch these floating Hindenburgs encounter unexpected, if catastrophic, events as they sail to Europe.
And I think that is an interesting prediction.
I think that may be the retaliation.
You'll see some problems with these ships if they cross.
So let's hope that doesn't happen.
We've been down this road before, and it's not a fun road to go down.
You know, I was, you know, poking at this, having an international commission to seek truth, because it doesn't happen here very often that you get an answer by setting up a commission.
But in a way, there is a reason why our officials should be looking into this very carefully.
You know, how much did we contribute to it?
Have we contributed anything to it?
And what do the people think?
And how's that going to affect election?
Because this is something that has to be looked at.
And because the basic problem that has developed there, we've been talking about it since 2014 and before.
But how did this come about?
And we talk a lot about NATO, but who's NATO?
And there's the sort of desire, I have it, most people do, when they like their country, but they can't support their government.
How do you handle this thing?
Because people don't like it when you criticize your own government, but that sometimes becomes very necessary.
So, of course, I want to know how we might have been involved.
You just used some quotes there, you know, that indicated that you watch out and we're going to take care of it and we'll do something about it.
And they are, our government is NATO, but it's a weakening NATO and people getting poor.
Maybe there's going to be a bigger chance of more of this type of activity happening.
But The U.S. government, and we have, of course, if you're an American citizen or if you're a representative in the American system, such as in government or Congress or something, you have a much, you do have a responsibility of looking into this, not so much that you want to tell the Russians and the Germans what to do, and you already stated the position.
We're not really supposed to be doing that and tell them when they can build it, but we're very much involved.
And to make the point, our involvement, has it really helped?
I mean, has it done in any way?
But you know, right now, the Europeans became totally dependent on us.
They do nothing to defend themselves.
So in order to keep that protection, they do whatever we tell them.
And who are we?
It usually involves people who make money off this.
If you want a motive out of this, there's political power to be gained.
And then there's also the motive of the people who make money on this.
So this is something that's going to have to be discussed whether it comes to the surface soon or not.
It's a big issue.
You know, what I meant, do you have another thought right about this?
No, Because I wanted to bring up that second item.
Yeah, we can even bring that up.
This is from our friend John Walsh at antiwar.com.
Because here it is.
It becomes a political issue for us.
And the interesting thing here, I found very fascinating, the anti-war.com by Walsh, the Democratic Party now, the leading party of war.
Oh, that's not true.
We have socialists and we have Barbara Lee and we have Bernie Sanders and they're the progressives and we believe we want to work with them and have tried.
But here, guess what?
They're more warmonger than Republicans.
And I'm really cautious about saying the Republicans were now the anti-war party, but they're getting a lot better on the war issue than the Democrats.
But the Republicans long term.
But that's the job of the people, to keep them at bay.
That's like saying, oh, COVID is over.
They'll never do that to us again.
No, they could do it to us again.
But here, the Democrats right now are strongly supportive our intervention, the spending, and the budgeting.
So we're not going to get a good message from them.
But fortunately, since the Republicans seem to be moving, that's the point of this article.
You might bring that up.
They're moving in a direction.
The Republicans are moving in a direction a lot better than the Democrats.
The Democrats are definitely becoming more war supportive.
And the Republicans are doing it.
Now you could say, well, you got to support your party.
And Biden's our president.
We have to take care of him.
And now we're Republicans, and we want to get in, and we want to be the boss.
And then so that's, you know, evaluating deep motives is not that easy.
But, you know, politicians are people that need close watching.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I mean, you can't discount just pure partisanship.
But Walsh's article, he talks a lot about a piece that Kinzer, who we both have enormous respect for, Stephen Kinzer, wrote a great book that we both like called Brothers, and he's written some other great books.
Kinzer wrote an article a few months ago talking about how weird it is that now the Democrats, the party of war, the Republican Party is slightly becoming more the party of peace.
And here's a quote from Kinzer as, say, let's call this exhibit A for his thesis.
We can do that next one here.
He says, this is Kinzer in the Boston Globe.
With Americans now engulfed in a passion for Ukraine, it wasn't surprising that Biden proposed sending $33 billion worth of weaponry and other aid to Ukraine's beleaguered military.
Nor was it surprising that Congress raised the number to 40 billion, or that both the Senate and House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor.
Hidden within that lopsided vote, though, was a shocker.
Every single no vote, 11 in the Senate and 57 in the House, came from a Republican.
He goes on.
Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect anti-war rhetoric from liberal Democrats.
Cancel that.
This month's votes in Washington signal a dramatic role reversal.
Suddenly, it's conservative Republicans who oppose U.S. involvement in foreign wars.
And as you say, he mentioned people like Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders, the squad, all of them voting in favor of war.
And Lee kind of shocks me because she went on on a ledge and didn't even vote for going after the people who bombed us on 9-11.
It's sort of another example, maybe just pure hypocrisy, because a few of those in the squad, you know, they're there to help the poor people.
But what is the first thing that they do in office?
They have financial support.
They get to move into the mansions.
And yet, the grassroots and the people, it takes so long for them to wake up.
Can't you see through this the hypocrisy of it all?
But I think that's a bipartisan problem.
You know, the grassroots, because right now it's still, I'm surprised at this article because there's so much support still coming on the conservative stations, and they have blind support and constant support.
Do anything you need to for Ukraine, which is exactly what Biden wants.
But not only that, and this is brought up in this article, and they're not doing this just over Ukraine.
You know, Nancy Pelosi's over there trying to start trouble in Taiwan.
Why The Hypocrisy Continues00:06:12
Yeah, yeah.
It makes no sense at all.
And you think, what are their motives for this?
And we don't ever find the final answer for that.
But the motives can't be good because if you can't find a sort of logical motive, you have to say they're stupid.
And that's not polite.
That's not nice.
Well, I don't want to be too sanguine about this because obviously there's a lot of warmongers in the Republican Party.
And definitely the old guard is still holding the line.
McCarthy and McConnell, most of the ranking members of the committees are the old line Republican war hawks.
But you're seeing, I think, a new wave of younger Republicans.
They're more media savvy.
I mean, McCarthy's contract, whatever with America, whatever he's putting out, totally, totally limp, totally bland.
There's no salt in it at all.
But you're seeing a lot of young Republicans running for office, people like JD Vance and others, who are very outspoken, they're very media savvy.
And we hope it goes in the right direction.
Obviously, they're not perfect, as you say.
A lot of them are China hawks, but hopefully they'll start understanding the philosophy and come in our direction.
But speaking of hawks, we've used up most of our time, but let's go to our last little piece and do it quick.
This is again from our friends at antiwar.com.
Congressional negotiators agree on $12 billion in new Ukraine aid.
What a shocker, Dr. Paul.
$12 billion more dollars, endless black hole of money to Ukraine.
Here's the thing that I found interesting, and I don't know what you thought about it, but they hid it in a must-pass continuing appropriations bill.
Now, normally those are for things that are unpalatable that they may be worried about, especially with an election coming up, that they still want to pass, but they don't necessarily want to have the light spotlight shine upon them.
So they'll hide it in a bill.
Oh, if you vote against that, you're going to shut down government.
You obstructionist Republicans.
You're bad guys.
I don't know if there is meaning.
Maybe I'm overthinking it.
But it's just interesting.
You'd think that they would want to put it in a standalone bill.
We're still helping those plucky little Ukrainians.
No, it's hidden in a must-pass budget bill.
I see some good news in here and I have to stretch it a little bit.
But, you know, it comes up with the issue of the Fed.
People will ask me, well, you're just going to close down the Fed and all this.
I said, no, the Fed's going to self-destruct and it won't work anymore.
And it's already getting a lot of negative news.
And finally, the system won't work and it's going to be over.
But you don't get 10 or 20 more people who understand that and get a president who won't veto the bill.
So that's not about to happen.
But this is not about to happen either.
If we get some more support from, but and I love to talk about these young people coming in and they have instincts that are quite different and they, they might be the, it might be a bipartisan group, for all we know it'll come up that will really stand uh firm against this.
But this is going to end too.
They were, they hide these things like this, and we already hear the talk in some of the campaigns that are going on right now of why are we spending all this money in in Ukraine, when they go 12 20, 70 billions of dollars?
Why, why don't we protect our borders?
Yeah, you know, all of a sudden, it just rings a bell because people are, you know, law enforcement.
Why?
Why do criminals get off in 10 minutes and get freed and they go out and commit murder?
Yeah, at the same time, the people.
If you're store owner, I keep thinking you should solve this problem with uh, with uh property rights yeah, but if you're the owner of the property, you better be careful.
You know, if somebody comes in and tears up your store and you have a shotgun, you shoot them.
You, you're gonna.
If you're in California, you'll be in prison for life, you know, for protecting your store.
But what's going to happen here is more and more people are going to say, why are you spending this money?
And we will run out of money.
I don't know how we managed to get along with this uh, this debt that we have 31 trillion dollars, interest rates going up and it's out of control, it's on autopilot.
They can't stop it.
So it will come to an end.
But it's amazing that they've been able to patch it together and and the people want to believe, because it's so bad, you may, you mean, eventually it could get so bad, you're not going to get your social security check.
Well, you'll get your check, it just won't buy anything.
You know that sort of thing, and the business community is going to do the same thing.
But so it, it will end.
But this is craziness.
Another 12 billion dollars, yeah and uh.
And when you think well, where would, how much would that help the people that are homeless, you know?
For maybe beyond their control, I mean, some don't take care of themselves but uh, beyond their control, and there's going to be a lot more people uh, you know, out on the street, I think, because I think our correction is just starting.
They say oh, they say it's transitory.
The transitory period lasted a little longer than we thought, but it's about over now and the stocks are up today, so it's all.
It's all going to be better, but no, we're.
We're just starting the the, the.
The ballooning of the debt and the malinvestment is so Huge, and it's worldwide, that it is not going to liquidate those mistakes.
Just think they're trying to struggle about the debt for college students.
And they will, but they're starting to say, who's going to be hurt the most?
So it's not going to be an easy process.
And you'd think that Republicans would be doing better.
You know, this is a great issue for Republicans.
Americans are not, especially Republican voters, are not keen on sending all this money over there.
You think they'd be doing better, but they're still afraid.
I want to do a couple quick clicks and clips and close out because this puts it in perspective.
This is from the same anti-war.com article.
You can put that next one up.
It says if the measure is passed, it will bring the total U.S. expenditure for the war in Ukraine to about $65.6 billion, including the $2 billion in energy spending to offset sanctions, brings the total to $67.6 billion.
Ukraine's Insatiable Appetite00:04:21
To put the figure in perspective, Russia's entire annual military budget for 2021 was $65.9 billion.
So almost $2 billion more we've given to Ukraine than Russia's entire military budget.
Unbelievable.
The next one, it's still not enough for Zelensky, though.
He's still mad.
Here he is in some goofy shirt in Congress.
The United States gives, and this is from a Zero Hedge article, here's what he says.
The United States gives us $1.5 billion every month to support our budget to fight against Russia, Ukrainian leader explained.
But he pointed out there remains, quote, a deficit of $5 billion in our budget.
He immediately pivoted to repeating Kiev's long-term complaint that it's not enough.
And Zero Hedge says, because it's never enough.
Though by and large, the common American taxpayer seems oblivious amid the onslaught of constant war headlines.
Terrible, terrible stuff.
My last word is again to remind our viewers, get your tickets, come down to Texas.
The weather's going to be nice in November.
Finally, shut up.
Cancel culture and the war on speech.
Great opportunity to get together with like-minded people, hear some great speakers, have a great breakfast.
The price is very, very reasonable to come down and listen to some great speakers.
And we'll have some of these speakers on the show in the next few days to talk more about it.
But get your tickets.
I'll put a link in the description again.
Don't waste your time.
Get your tickets now before they sell out.
This is a smaller conference than our Washington conference.
Small get-together.
So we look forward to seeing you here on November 5th.
Very good.
I want to mention something about your last statement about the money for Russia.
You know, they're getting, you know, we have as much in our military as all of Russia.
But when the propagandists report about Russia, they expect and they get a lot of Americans to just cringe.
Oh, the Russians are coming.
You know, they've been able to change the psychology, and that's just the power of the demagogues and the media, and now it's the social media and everything else.
They participate in getting people to get just intimidated and fearful.
And we're fearful of it.
But at the same time, we spend all this money.
One of the reasons they can play on this is that the money, when people get to know a little bit about it, they realize that money has nothing to do with national security and safety.
It makes it worse.
I mean, we're worrying about what's going to happen and how are we going to settle that problem in Taiwan?
How are we going to settle the problem in Ukraine?
And how are we going to contain these Russians?
Those Russians are outdoing us in this sort of thing.
They just go on and on.
And yet, it is true.
I think that all that money is being spent, we're less secure.
I think if we spent a lot less money and talked about improving our conditions in this country, having the defense that we need, and people would be much happier because they would be a lot wealthier because this is a drain on a middle-class people because we don't have the money, we print the money, prices go up, and the middle class pays for this, and it's only starting.
So this is the reason that people should take it to heart that when you hear these statistics and fear-mongering, it doesn't mean you ignore them.
I mean, we should never, never ignore, you know, people who are capable, and we shouldn't ignore what China says.
But China, I have a suspicion, I have a secret.
I think China likes to do business with us, and they're not going to want to, you know, close down, and we like to do business with them.
But then you have the politicians get involved who are sent there by this thing called democracy.
Get 51% of the people intimidated and fearful, and oh, yes, we need some more hawks in there.
But as we said during our program, maybe that's changing, and that'll be good.