'Gimme Gimme Gimme!' - Ukraine's Zelensky Demands MORE Money From Washington
Ukrainian president Zelensky has warned US Republicans that if they win next week Ukraine needs more than just weapons. Ukraine also needs cold, hard cash to pay its bills. Ukraine's endless demands even irritated President Biden, according to a new article on CNBC. Also today: Covid tyranny aftershocks continue, with Dr. Peter McCullough continuing to be stripped of his licenses...for telling the truth. Finally: 60 years ago we almost saw nuclear war. Cooler heads prevailed. Today we are back...without cooler heads.
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good.
All right.
Ready to go.
Talk about all the world events.
Yes.
And some people want to talk about the election, but I think they probably talk too much about the election.
But we do talk about it.
We'll talk a little bit about the elections, especially in the weekly report we do.
And the elections, as much as I complain about, it never seems to change a lot.
We keep saying, well, maybe this time, this time it'll be different.
But we'll see.
But we want to start off with a subject that our viewers are interested in, and more Americans are getting interested in it because they didn't pay attention at all in 2014 when the handwriting was on the war that we would be involved in some activities in Ukraine.
And now we're still there, and I believe we'll be there for a long time to come.
Unfortunately.
But we'll give an update on that.
The Ukrainians and Zelensky, they're bold.
They're bold.
They're allies.
So you can't call them arrogant, can you?
But they're bold and brass.
Maybe that's it.
They just believe that anything they say and do, we're supposed to take care of them.
But that's the way we act.
In order to maintain our image, we have endless funds.
We have endless powers, endless bombs.
And yeah, it looks like it will be mentioned, that maybe even our leaders from the far left who have become a long distance from the progressives who once thought you shouldn't be getting involved in war.
You should send them food stamps, but don't send them bombs.
But here it is.
We're doing that.
But now the Ukrainian leaders are saying they're talking to the GOP because most people think the GOP may win.
That guns are good and the weapons are good and we need them, keep them flowing, but we need some other things.
And I think it's interesting what they're really looking for.
They're looking for the things that we need, like financing budgets and oil and all this other nonsense.
They're asking for things.
They never say, Americans, we want it, but we haven't figured out where you guys get this stuff.
How do you pay your bills?
Oh, we don't.
We don't.
We just run it up.
Well, how long is that going to last?
If you're a good Ukrainian, you should say, maybe we should assume that the gravy train won't last forever.
And maybe that's what we're witnessing now.
You know, even foreign policy has crept into the campaign.
Now people are starting to hurt in this country.
And yet, right now it's on the table to send more stuff, even though Biden got a little bit of annoyed at the boldness of what we want.
But, you know, once you start defeating somebody and giving the people something, you know, it just means you're going to ask for more.
The more they get, the more they want, and the more dependent they are.
So it's a sad fear that we are dealing with.
But the one thing for sure, unfortunately, in a way, it always ends.
It always ends in a tragedy, just like for an individual.
People feel good when they start on drugs.
People feel good when they either doing the drugs or when they're over borrowing.
But eventually, on the individual basis, a lot of them finally have to quit and they don't have it.
And look at how many people aren't able to cope with the downturn that we have in this and in our country today.
And yet, it doesn't, you matter if I was going to say it doesn't take a PhD to fill this out.
It takes getting the PhDs away from us because they've been preaching this thing.
Don't worry about it.
Deficits don't matter.
So anyway, there's a shift attitude here.
And I think it's a sign that we're running out of money and maybe they're getting a hint that that's happening.
Yeah, that's a little optimistic, I think.
But, you know, you mentioned Americans are waking up.
And I should have gotten a clip of this.
I didn't, but I saw it over the weekend.
Saint Obama was actually heckled at a rally.
Several people stood up and said, why did you overthrow the government in Ukraine in 2014?
You got us into this mess.
What are you doing?
And they even said some things about Joe Biden that were not very pleasant.
I'll put it that way, whether or not it's true.
It's another thing.
But Obama heckled.
You don't see that much, and he was rattled.
But let's put up that first clip because this is what we're talking about.
This is a piece in Politico this morning.
Ukraine tells the GOP it can't just be about guns.
And this is fascinating because as you say, Dr. Paul, the boldness, the brashness, the demands continuously made that the U.S. continue to fund them.
They're not, they are making a big bet, and they're betting that if the GOP wins, that they won't end the gravy train.
And it's probably a safe bet for a number of reasons.
The mainline Republicans are not going to give up on this war because they love war.
They love all wars, just like the Democrats now.
But they're doubling down on their demands, and that's what this political piece is.
They say, look, GOP, we know you're about to win, and you're going to keep giving us weapons, but we need more than weapons.
We need you to finance our economy.
We've got a budget to pay.
We've got people's salaries to pay.
We've got roads to fix here.
We've got to do all this stuff.
And the interesting thing that struck me about this article, Dr. Paul, two things, and I'll go over them quickly.
First of all, the spokesman who spoke about this, you know, we're not too worried.
The GOP is going to keep giving us money.
His name is Daniel Vydich.
He's a lobbyist for the Ukrainian government.
He's also in the Atlantic Council, and he runs a firm where he is a lobbyist.
So this is the irony of it.
And here's what he says.
In fact, Ukraine expects, quote, even more robust weapons packages if Republicans are in charge.
That Daniel Vydich, a lobbyist for the Ukrainian government.
So this is the thing that's really pretty disgusting, Dr. Paul.
We send them billions of dollars.
With those billions of dollars taken from us, they hire lobbyists to lobby our Congress to give them billions of more dollars, you know?
And that's like our friend Chuck Spinney says, it's a self-licking ice cream cone.
But I want to mention one thing about the other thing that's disgusting about this is the Politico article itself.
And actually, if you wouldn't mind putting up that bonus clip, because it's just worth, and I did it as a bonus because I didn't see it when I was sending the clips over, but it just was too good to pass up.
In this Politico article about how we're going to keep sending weapons, if you're reading it and you're just reading, I just clipped this at random reading the article.
If Kevin becomes Speaker of the House, he's going to have to govern.
He's going to govern properly.
Underneath it, advertisement, Lockheed Martin.
So Politico is literally financed by Lockheed Martin.
And so when you read these articles, you really have to take it with a grain of salt.
And that's how we take this article, Dr. Paul.
But bottom line is, Ukraine is not too worried.
They've got hundreds of lobbyists in D.C. paid by our money to steal more of our money.
And they're betting that the GOP is going to keep the gravy train running.
You know, they've gotten a lot now.
I see one person estimated closer to 80.
We've been using 67, but it's adding up quickly.
And there's some on the table again, getting ready to send more.
And now they're saying, well, they're assuming the weapons will always come because we're in a position where we have to save the world.
East and West are about to have a war and you'll have to deal with us.
But we need a little bit more.
And Vedic said, we need something more than guns.
He says, that means money to erase Ukraine's budget deficit and to underwrite the energy sector and other civil services such as schools.
That sounds like we better bail out America.
I mean, exactly what our problems are.
That's why Republicans will do a little bit better because they're against all this stuff.
But when they're in office, we'll wait and see.
We'll be watching.
Yeah, I don't have a lot of hope for McCarthy or McConnell to stop this.
But I mean, that's just astonishing.
I mean, everyone should read that article and read what they're saying.
Hey, we need you to pay for our budget deficit.
Who's going to pay for ours?
Schools.
Who's going to pay for ours?
But you know, it got so bad, and this is a piece that we noticed in CNBC today.
And actually, skip that next clip and go straight to the one with a picture of Biden on the phone.
It got so bad, according to this article that came out today.
It got so bad in June that Biden got ticked off at Zelensky.
The title is, Biden Lost Temper with Zelensky in June Phone Call when Ukrainian Leader Asked for More Aid.
And do the second one, the next clip, sorry, after this.
And here's what from the article, CNBC.
But a phone call between the two leaders in June played out differently than the previous ones, according to four people familiar with the call.
Biden had barely finished telling Zelensky he just greenlighted another billion dollars in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelensky started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn't getting.
Biden lost his temper.
Probably reminded him of Hunter kept asking for crack money.
You know, hey, Dad, I need some more money.
It probably reminded him of that.
But anyway, even Biden, who's on the hook for this whole thing, well, we are, but who's certainly politically on the hook, even he said, come on, man.
You can't keep asking for money all the time.
That was amazing.
But, you know, the lobbyist got to Zelensky because he thought he went overboard and the lobbyists, you know, he's the referee.
So he had Zelensky sort of sort of apologize or be nice.
He says, oh, Niss, we had a fine conversation together and never mentioned, you know, what's going on.
But I think that's hilarious.
And I keep thinking when they do this stuff and they think everybody's supposed to believe it.
And they, you know, we're totally in bed.
And then we listen to these people that want more.
And I think figure, what planet are they on?
You know, they're not even on the moon.
They're a lot further out.
They're probably on Pluto, that one that's disappearing.
They're just out of it, but they keep doing it.
And that's why, over the years, I have always made the point that it's going to end badly.
And they say, well, why do you keep fighting for the do the right thing and balance budget and cut the spending?
Because eventually we will have to out of force because economic laws and the political rules will not permit a wise approach to this.
And that is everybody cuts back, everybody works harder, and they work a way out of it and pay off the debt or liquidate the debt, but just get rid of the debt, rid of the male investment, with the expectation that we'll return basically to the principles of free markets and sound money.
A long way to go because we've been just think we've been living within since 1971 without a definition of what money is in the entire world.
And that's that's why this idea, well, is it worse in Europe or worse in the United States?
This is a worldwide event because globalism, and we were in charge.
Someday we'll have to admit, who's been in charge of all this?
Well, it was our empire, you know.
But people started getting greedy.
They wanted too much.
And then the politicians didn't want to throw them out of office.
So they kept taking more and more and then pretending they had it.
And that's when the inflation started.
Just print more money and people won't know what's going on for a while.
But that's what we're seeing.
They're waking up right now.
But they have to realize that higher prices is a tax and it comes from spending and debt.
And it isn't something that comes because somebody finally decided I'm going to make some profits or my wages have to be higher.
I want higher wages and we have to sell stuff at higher prices.
That's not it.
It's the depreciation, the evaluation of the currency in charge, and that's been the dollar, especially since World War II.
But really a bad example of how to do things since 1971.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I'm just thinking about this because this really gets my goat, Dr. Paul.
The idea that we give them, and not just Ukraine, but all of these other countries, we give them billions of dollars, and with the money they get from us, they use to hire all of these lobbyists in D.C. to lobby for more money.
I know your position is the right one, has always been that lobbying is fine because you can always say no, and you did.
Most people don't, but you should be able to hire a representative to represent your position.
I honestly don't know what the solution is, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on it.
Like, how can this be addressed?
That they, you know, you pick our pockets and they hire people to advise them to vise more money for them.
Well, the founders understood this.
They warned against this, and they even named the cause.
They flat out said the Constitution is not going to work if the people don't have moral standards, if they don't believe in a higher law, just decency and honesty and telling the truth, which we've drifted away for a long way from that.
So the answers are out there and we have it.
So therefore, we are very much involved in politics, spend a lot of time there trying to get our points across.
But basically, who's in charge of improving the moral standards of a people?
And that's a bigger question.
And you say, well, it's a family.
Well, might agree it's a family.
But look at what wokeism did to the families.
It's purposely designed to destroy the family, and they've done a pretty good job.
But there are people waking up and there is recognition that there has to be change.
So if you see, we should be as excited about a return to an emphasis on the family as we are if we found out that we saved $1 billion out of a $20 billion bill.
I mean, that means nothing.
But somebody else, everybody has to be involved.
But the moral standards is a reflection of parents, schools, and look at our schools.
I don't think we can recover just like you have a cataclysmic end to the monetary system.
Families Over Big Government00:08:17
There has to be a cataclysmic end to government schools.
And we have to think about separating school and state just as much as we basically understand the principle of separation of church and state.
Yeah.
Well, I do remember one time when you kicked out a lobbyist on his ear.
Oh, I didn't do that.
It's one of the few times that I've told this story before I've saw a flash of anger in you.
But I'm sure if you had gone along to get along, you'd be right now cruising in your Mercedes in D.C. or something.
But all you have to do is do the right thing.
It wasn't that hard, I'm sure.
But let's move on to something that I know was really near and dear to your heart.
And it also sticks in your craw as well as every decent person.
Let's put on this next one.
This is from Steve Kirsch.
It was on Lou Rockwell today.
Go back one if we can, please.
Thank you.
Dr. Peter McCullough is being progressively stripped of his medical credentials.
And I know you've had a lot of respect for him throughout the so-called pandemic.
They are not letting up on McCullough.
They want to destroy him.
Yeah, you know, I try to understand why.
I'm always interested in why they're doing it.
What are their motives?
This sort of thing.
But it just, it's beyond belief sometimes to pick somebody that says dedicated to medicine, has done a good job, told the truth, was right on all the misinformation that was out there.
And now he got his rewards from that government.
Appreciate it so much.
But he wrote a little bit about this.
And I want to read a little short statement that he made.
He says, I was terminated as the editor-in-chief of cardio-renal medicine and reviews in cardiovascular medicine after years of service and rising impact factors.
Excuse me.
There was no phone call when he got fired or kicked off.
No board meetings, no due process, just email and certified letters.
Powerful dark forces are working in an academic medicine to impunge any resistance to the vaccine.
It's back to this.
It's the vaccination.
And they literally, you'd think if they had a half a brain, that they're risking a suicidal pact.
They take these and then they get the disease and then they talk themselves into saying, you know, I've been pretty sick and I had five shots, but I could have been sicker.
They brainwashed themselves on that.
This is a tragedy.
And we have a lot of individuals in our family that have gone into medicine.
And I'd vouch for them that they're in medicine for the right reasons.
But I'll tell you what, it's sort of shaky because by the time you go through, you know, I was interested in political ideas in medical school because I heard it, but I wasn't an activist and I didn't know, I didn't know what I was getting into.
And then my residency, when they were breaking all the laws and doing the abortions and all, I was exposed to this.
But this is a real mess for medicine, and I have mixed feelings, you know, about what my family's doing.
But I also thought, well, yes, but what thing is sacred enough that they wouldn't be touched by big government?
You know, in the tragedy of big government.
And there's no reason why a good physician can't always provide a service no matter what the conditions are if you're a physician for the right reason.
So I try to guide them.
But just thinking, I'm one little family, but just think of all the other people that have had no exposure at all to this, and they're not in a position to raise a concern.
And it takes a little bit of gut sometimes to do it.
McCullough was one of those heroes.
And that's the way they're treating him.
And that to me is such a tragedy.
And still, even after we know so much more about how much they lied, and you can put up that next clip because this is Dr. Paul.
Well, you read part of it, but here's the second part that McCullough wrote in a note to Kerr.
She said, yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in internal medicine and cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.
I think someone I read somewhere that he's one of the most published and peer-reviewed doctors of all time in the U.S.
And you wonder, he gets kicked in the teeth, lose it, but he's still going to win.
He's already a heroic figure for the people who keep their eyes and ears open.
Then all of a sudden, what has our society done?
They have picked out some individuals to reward them and put them on a high pedestal.
And so they pay those individuals big, huge sums and give them recognition.
And then we end up with Dr. Fauci.
You know, what a tragedy.
And that thing, comparing McCullough with a Fauci is really the issue.
You know, how can a society go along with that?
But, you know, there were so many people that I like and I've known, but they don't look at it in a deep fashion.
And they go along and they say, well, you know, the government is supposed to be there for good purposes.
They're supposed to help us and take care of us.
Besides, you know, we get our Medicare from them.
And they put, it's almost like a blind trust that they don't want to question it.
Because one thing it does, it questions maybe 30 years of obedience.
Why didn't they say something before?
You know, a guy like Fauci, let's say he turned over a new leaf.
No, he can't possibly do that.
And sometimes the individuals, in order to survive this and do these things that they might not have done 10, 15 years ago, is they literally brainwash themselves.
I believe that's a possibility.
If you preach this for pragmatic reasons, we have to do this.
Never admitting the pragmatic reason is working with the pharmaceutical companies.
Yeah, of course.
Well, I do think the tide is turning.
And one of the ways I know that is because what the bad guys are saying now.
And let's put up this next clip.
This is a new piece that came out in the Atlantic, and it got a lot of attention.
It's called, Let's Declare a Pandemic Amnesty.
Subtitle, We Need to Forgive One Another for What We Did and Said When We Were In the Dark About COVID.
And these are the same people that would say, vaccine passport, kick them out of society.
You're monsters.
You're killing grandma.
Now they're saying, well, we need to forgive each other.
And Congressman Troy Nell said, rightly so, he commented, they made you cancel funerals and say goodbye to loved ones over Skype.
No pandemic amnesty.
Accountability is coming.
I do hope those aren't just empty words because we have to have some justice for what these monsters did to us.
That's the name of the game, and that will come as more and more people wake up.
And I always look for a prevailing attitude.
But I try not to discourage people because it's prevailing.
But if you think about it, there's certain leaders that lead the charge.
We saw them in the demonstrations, two or three people stand up and speak.
And then the other people, well, he's right.
I wondered what there's something wrong here.
And so that can be contagious too in a good sense.
Just like the people went along with locked ones and they rationalized and thought that it was proper.
But I think that people will come along once they see it.
And that's why the McCulloughs of the world have to be herald as a real champion.
Nuclear Threats and Leaders00:08:19
And that is, to me, so important.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, we marked an anniversary over the weekend when we weren't doing this show.
I know we'd like to talk about it a little bit.
If we can put this next piece up, this is from the Harvard Gazette.
And this is from Graham Ellison, distinguished professor.
He literally wrote the book on communications during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The article is titled, 60 Years After Cuban Missile Crisis, Nuclear Threat Feels Chillingly Immediate.
Now, he's somewhat, this is an interview with Allison, and he's saying a lot of this stuff sounds familiar.
You know, I think the recent episode about the nuclear stuff, that's been floating around off and on over the years, and even dealing with Ukraine, it's been floating around.
But it was the announcement that Finland said, it's okay with us.
Put the nukes in here.
Well, that'll protect us.
Not realizing that if they use their brains, they would say, this is going to make us more vulnerable.
You're putting us right on the front lines.
So anyway, that was announced, but Biden doesn't like to be pushed around.
And people should recognize that fact because he might push pretty darn hard and they're not going to like it.
So what does he do?
He comes back and he says, well, oh, you're putting the nukes.
And I thought you guys said you won't come near our borders.
NATO told us this.
And the United States said, we're staying away from you.
The Cold War is over and we're friends and we're trading.
Yeah, sure.
So they did this.
And all of a sudden, there was this announcement that, well, why don't we put missiles?
The Russians, why don't they put missiles in Cuba?
And, you know, it's probably a threat.
Let's hope so.
But it also makes a point.
It really answers the question, how would they like it if they did the same thing to us?
And that's what they're doing.
Not only that, if they did the same thing, you know, we have missiles and nukes all along the border, you know, in Eastern Europe and therefore.
So he says, we'll have to do this and go with it.
But the nuclear missiles, you know, reminds me, of course, 60 years ago.
It was a day in my infamy or whatever it was because we were following it and the missiles were there in September or October and Kennedy was in and he was facing a dilemma.
It was the nukes and the missiles that were in Cuba.
And I remember those days.
The one day, you know, I wasn't, you know, I was in the residency, but I wasn't like, oh, you know, tomorrow the bombs are going to, I wasn't at that point.
I was at that point, but I guess, you know, because I had predicted years ago, I always said, you know, when they draft me, when they draft me, assuming that's the way the country was moving, you know, from World War II all the way through Korea and Vietnam.
So I always assumed they would.
So what happened in October as that thing was unwinding in the process?
I got my message.
You are now inducted.
My notice was you will be inducted.
I had my MD degrees and some postgraduate training.
And usually if you do that through the routine process, you get a commission or something.
But they sort of, in a way, threatened me.
And they say, well, you're drafted.
And you will go in as a buck private.
And, you know, there's your chance.
Unless you volunteer.
I used to kid people say, oh, I'm volunteers.
I volunteer.
They said you could practice medicine.
You could apply to be a flight surgeon and that sort of thing.
So I went in, But that was something I ended up in the military for about five years.
But that was a big deal.
I mean, it changed a lot of my activities because that was my first move to Texas.
And so it's something that, you know, it was a big event.
And it was a big event back then.
We're not nowhere close to anything like that, but it's sort of ironic in the sense that 60 years later, we're no better off with our foreign policy.
But back then, you know, it was top secret.
And you're familiar with the country of Hungary.
Yeah, it was Hungary, wasn't it?
No, Turkey.
Yeah, Turkey.
Turkey with the missiles.
That was the deal behind the scenes.
But it would have looked like Kennedy and everybody else sold out.
They agreed to move the missiles out of Turkey.
But that was just a trade-off.
They do that.
Russia got something, and the thing settled down.
And then, of course, communism collapsed because it was a failed system.
Just like there's a few other failed systems floating around the world.
Waiting to collapse.
Well, put up that quote.
I'll just do this last quote.
This is from the interview.
And I think Allison's probably a little more charitable to Biden than many people would be.
But he says, Biden also says we've been very actively looking for an off-ramp.
So I think he's learned the lesson.
But most of the commentariat haven't, and that's true.
He said, and you're right.
And this is the important part, I think, Dr. Paul.
When Kennedy thought about the experience, this was life-changing for him.
He became more reflective.
My God, what did we almost do?
And then very deliberately in that famous American University speech, he said, the central lesson for nuclear statecraft going forward is that while defending our national, our vital interests, we must avert confrontations that force an adversary to choose between humiliating defeat and nuclear war.
And that's a very good point.
I'm not sure that Biden has got that.
I'm not sure he's necessarily capable of processing it.
Yet we seem to be determined to push this into an eventuality.
Well, I'm still in favor of preventative medicine.
And I'm also in favor of preventative military conflict.
And this could have been prevented.
A lot of things could have been prevented.
But this whole situation, if we had had a TAFT policy all these years, we wouldn't be in NATO.
We wouldn't be in NATO and we wouldn't have this popping up constantly and all the wars we fight.
Well, we had a good war, the good war.
Remember, Obama said the good war was Afghanistan.
So he gave us 20 years there, participated in the 20 years.
But there's now some people talking about that.
Yes.
It's a little late, but better late than never.
So that's kind of talk.
Let's get out of NATO.
And I thought, you and I were the only two around.
A lot of protests in Europe.
Like you say, a lot of protests in Europe over the weekend.
Get out of NATO.
We don't need this.
We'd rather eat some food and not freeze.
Yeah, it is.
Well, I'm going to close out.
And if we can just move to that last clip, I'm going to skip those couple of other ones and hit that last one if we can.
This is the week, Dr. Paul, last week to get your tickets.
Lake Jackson, November 5th, Lake Jackson, Texas.
Shut up, cancel culture and the war on speech.
I've been trying to make the program, the order, and there are so many great speakers.
I'm having a tough time.
I had to do the math.
I got to get my calculator out trying to fit all these great talks into the limited amount of time we have.
But it's still going to be a great, I mean, it's a topic that we focus on so much and a great opportunity to listen to the people who are the best, I think, among the best thinkers about this whole idea of attacking speech.
So I will put a link on the bottom for how you can get your tickets if you're, especially if you're not far from the area.
It's not a hard drive, a mile, I mean an hour from Houston.
And we look forward to seeing you on Saturday.
Dr. Paul?
Very good.
I'm going to close with a quick statement on how long our country has been facing a problem like this.
Separating Speech from Social Media00:04:06
You know, we refer to the founders in a very positive way most of the time.
But the Alien and Seditions Act was pretty early, you know, in our history.
And that was just an attack on freedom of speech because, you know, the Federalists were, they're the ones who passed the thing and they were going to regulate speech.
Jefferson, of course, objected to this.
So this was the very beginning at the beginning of our country.
So I guess the good and bad argument always exists.
There's some good and some bad and exists and we have to continue to deal with it.
But governments are responsible for it.
Now, this is the first time in my lifetime, and I think it's the first time in our history that it's worked out quite the same way on the control of speech because it isn't the government that write the law and then enforce the law and send a military officer to arrest you for talking against the war or something.
It's a system now today where it's much more sophisticated because it's a collusion between social media and the government.
They're partners in this and the social media is so often an extension of the government.
And the government frequently we hear, oh, but we didn't do that.
You know, such and such social media did that.
And I think they know that because even for libertarians, they struggle with it.
And I had to think hard about, you know, how do you do it when it's a private company, so they say, and there are social media that we can tell them they can't, you know, cancel people's speech.
Well, it turns out that they're not free market.
They're part of the government and there's an agreement with the government.
Sometimes they literally not only respond to government demands and also the government finances them to a large degree, especially in the early years, that they also say that if you don't do this, you're going to have trouble.
So now some of the social media has been caught collecting it on their own information and suggesting, oh, maybe I'll tell my friends over at the FBI what's going on.
Maybe they ought to look into this.
And some of the bad stuff has occurred that way.
So it's unfair to say that messing around and trying to curtail anything in social media is something that you're not following consistently with a libertarian principle.
But the big thing is, the main thing that we have to do is to separate the two, that people should have the right of free speech.
The social media can be controlled by contracts that people have on what the conditions are when you join them.
And also, you know, it's something that the people can agree to.
And one of the things I think protects speech and the First Amendment to most is property.
When I think about it as a church, nobody goes into a church and say, oh, freedom of speech.
You guys have freedom of speech in this church.
Well, I'm coming in and I have my speech done.
I want my speech.
I want equal time.
Nobody even does it because it's so absurd.
So this is the whole thing that, and that's a clear-cut definition of property control on the speech.
But basically, you can work in that direction, that the government doesn't have to be in total control of all the property.
But if there's ever any confusion about separating the true true truth out of this, I say always go in the direction of providing the maximum amount of freedom of speech and whatever freedom you're dealing with, and the imperfections can be worked out.
But I have enough confidence in the free market that the First Amendment can be protected maybe even better by a property rights issue and a contractual issue.