All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2022 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
37:47
Did The Pentagon Really 'Green Light' Ukraine Strikes Inside Russia?

The London Times newspaper reported on Friday that the US has given Ukraine the "green light" to fire missiles deep into Russian territory, reportedly based on lack of Russian response to previous provocations. Are the neocons-in-charge determined to destroy the world? Also today: US sends 'biggest arms dealer' back to Russia? And: Why the new military budget is a massive waste of money.

|

Time Text
Ukrainian Decisions and Drone Strikes 00:14:59
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.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
Monday already?
As weekends fly by.
I know, they do indeed, yes.
We try to get caught up, of course.
But anyway, we're here Monday morning, ready and raring to go and solve the problems, and I don't know whether they're more or less, but they're there.
But I assume the problems are going to last for a long time, whether it's domestic or foreign, because I see the big picture, and that is not only a national bankruptcy for the United States, but a world bankruptcy and a financial crisis coming because it's all based on a dollar expansion.
So we're going to have problems.
People overreact under these conditions, economically speaking, as well as militarily.
And of course, the authoritarians are always hungry for power, and they've changed the rules now that they are now the policemen, not of the world, but of every individual in this country.
And of course, they've assumed responsibility and control over every child in this country to make sure they're educated well and they accept their responsibilities.
But today we want to talk about some of the irresponsible things going on in Washington and foreign policy.
That was, you know, one of our big motivations to get our organization started was to deal with the issue of foreign policy, but in the context of we want to promote peace and prosperity.
So those are pretty good challenges.
But anyway, Zero Hedge, our friends at Zero Hedge had a good article here.
It says, Pentagon gives tacit support for Ukrainians, drones attacking deep into Russia.
That doesn't sound like good common sense to me.
I mean, why would anybody go around the world 6,000 miles and provoke war?
You know, the Russians, not the Russians, the Soviets tried that.
They came over and they put their missiles in Cuba and that got a little bit close to us.
And Kennedy, who was considered a very liberal Democrat, had to face this.
And, you know, it was a very dangerous time.
It was so dangerous they were willing to call me up.
Ron, we need you, we need you.
So I got my draft notice.
So I remember it well.
So we're now facing a situation that is continuous because we're the ones that have ever since that time put all our weapons not only in the many places we had them before, but many more have, many more weapons in more countries that were invading.
The empire is growing.
But I often wonder, how many people in the United States really see a self as operating an empire?
Because, you know, that to me is pretty important.
If you know that's what they're doing, they might have their enemy target a little bit differently than when we just say it's our previous president.
We can explain everything for him because he introduced all this stuff and he caused all our problems.
He told lies and all the kind of nonsense.
But anyway, the big question now is everybody knew and talked about it.
We talked about it.
You better be careful because the Russians have rules and they feel threatened.
They're surrounded by nuclear weapons.
It's happened not just in the current episode of the provoking by NATO in 2014, but it's been going on for a long time.
Now, this is escalating, and we assumed it would ever since 2014.
We really have, but there were some lines drawn.
The Russians could be pushed around, and they may not be the powerhouse that everybody claims they are.
And if we overstepped those bounds, we had reasonable people say, well, you just limited time, don't do this.
There was a limit to how far the Soviets could go, and we had to draw a line.
Now, though, the line was, don't start bombing inside Russia.
You know, this could provoke some problems.
And we've been very much involved to say that, oh, we've been very neutral with Russia ever since all this.
So now, but we've been involved.
We've been in there.
But this was more precise.
There was some bombing done, and it wasn't by an airplane.
I believe it was done by a drone.
And they proved that they're not going to slow up.
They're going to bomb the mainland of Russia.
So they excited a lot of people.
And we're still concerned.
And we should try to wake up as many people as we can and not blindly send any more people to Washington who said, go send me there.
I really love the military-industrial complex.
And we have 3,000 jobs just in our very district.
We got to go there and keep these jobs.
So don't send those kind of people over there.
Does that mean you don't want a national defense?
Yes, we want a defense.
We don't want an offense.
We don't want an empire to protect.
And of course, if you look at history, it's the empire building and the bankruptcies that have brought all great nations to their knees.
Indeed.
Well, let's put up that first clip.
And here's what we're talking about.
This is some reporting that came out from the Times of London on Friday.
And it's very serious, and it definitely caught our attention right away.
Pentagon gives Ukraine green light for drone strikes inside Russia.
Now, there are a few interesting things about this, Dr. Paul.
First of all, we've had the insistence since February that the U.S. and NATO are not a party to this war and will not be a party to this war at all.
Well, how can that be the case if the U.S. has the ability to greenlight anything for Ukraine?
So it's kind of like they want to have it both ways.
They want to pretend that they're not a party to the war, yet at the same time, they feel they can greenlight what Ukraine does and how far it goes into Ukraine, into Russia.
And the point you're making about these three drone strikes on U.S. Russian military bases inside Russia.
Now, one of those bases, the Engels, is extremely important.
That is the headquarters of the Russian nuclear fleet, nuclear-capable tupola bombers, as we talked about this last week.
So this is a, for Russia, this would be considered an extreme existential threat to hit this airspace.
Interestingly enough, these three drone strikes happened just as Victoria Newland was in Kiev.
Remember, she was the architect of the 2014 coup in Maidan, which started this whole thing off.
She was back there, and it does make you wonder, was she whispering in someone's ear, hey, Zelensky, why don't you go ahead and hit inside Russia?
I would not put it past her.
Now, this next clip, this is an anti-war.com write-up of the Times article.
And I put it up here for the reason.
Now, this is the rationale, according to Times reporting, for why Washington now believes it can greenlight Ukraine attacking deep inside Russia.
This is anti-war.com reporting.
The U.S. position appears to only be based on the fact that up to this point, Russia hasn't responded to attacks on its territory with nuclear weapons or by attacking NATO countries.
So if that is the rationale, if that is the trigger, well, they haven't attacked us yet.
So therefore, you can green light going deeper in.
You can actually leave that up if you don't mind.
Well, green light going deeper in and wait and see if they use a nuke next time.
You know, that sounds like insane reasoning.
In fact, I sent this to Colonel McGregor and he wrote back suicidal and insane.
But this is anti-war again.
The Times report reads, Moscow's revenge attacks have to date all involved conventional missile strikes against civilian targets.
Previously, the Pentagon was warrior of Ukraine attacking Russia because it feared the Kremlin would retaliate either with tactical nuclear weapons or by targeting neighboring NATO nations.
So again, Dr. Paul, this is, well, they haven't responded yet.
So let's ratchet it up and overtly say, go ahead, Ukraine, have at it.
Take out their nuclear-capable aircraft fleet, the Tupolovs, if you want.
No problem.
They're not going to strike back.
Yeah, our attitude or their reasoning is don't sweat Russia.
We don't have to worry about them.
They can't and won't respond.
And of course, that's the real danger because what the American people, and what's hard for all of us to do, is see it from their point of view, because that means you're a wimp.
You mean you're going to consider the enemy?
I mean, well, you mean there'll be civilians killed, this sort of thing.
But they see it only from our viewpoint, and our viewpoint is usually dictated to us by the military-industrial complex and their control of the message.
And that's where the real problem comes from, because American people's ideas can shift.
And we witnessed it in Washington when they were building up for the 20-year war in Iraq and then also Afghanistan.
And the American people responded because they were told you're unpatriotic if you don't.
But now the administration is sort of in between here because they want to be involved, but they also want to follow the rules.
Well, we're not responsible for Ukraine, you know.
Yet they're trying to devise and they shift words around and pretend that it's going to make a big, big, big difference about what the policy will be.
But here is what the administration said.
When we give them a weapon system, it belongs to them.
Where they use it, how they use it, how much ammunition they use to use that system.
I mean, those are Ukrainian decisions.
And we respect that.
That's sick.
Yeah, it is.
Because, you know, said in the proper context, that would be a beautiful statement of non-intervention.
But this is a pretense of making a wild excuse by using good arguments after we provoke the whole situation.
And lest people say, well, you know, that's kind of a double standard you have.
Those are military targets.
Yes, they are military targets within Russia.
Our point is not that they are not military targets.
Our point is that we have no business telling them if they can or cannot strike because we shouldn't be involved.
And this danger of escalation is something that we could very real, we could experience in a very real way.
We should not be a party to this war at all.
But they say, but we have to defend democracy in Ukraine.
Well, Tucker Carlson had a great segment the other night with Glenn Greenwald, two heroes, in my opinion.
And Tucker, I think, pointed out that our great hero Zelensky in Ukraine, he outlawed all non-state media.
He outlawed all political opposition.
And last week, he outlawed the Orthodox Church.
So if this is what democracy and freedom looks like, for which we have to pay $100 billion, is this really something worth defending?
You know, the Times report, you I think alluded to it already, tacitly backing Ukrainian attacks on Russia.
In Biden's administration, we'll be more likely to provide long-range missiles because they've gotten away with this.
And we've always said, oh, we don't give them those really deadly weapons.
And this is, it's amazing how important that is to them.
You know, it sort of is just deflecting, you know, a little bit of criticism.
And either people are totally, you know, absent on this, they don't really care.
And some are just sort of ticking around and say, well, they're doing it with some cautions.
There were the danger, and they've been cautious.
But that is so bad because it is not complicated when we describe our foreign policy.
Non-intervention is non-intervention.
Mind our own business and don't have police of the world and don't have an empire and recognize the fact that we're bankrupt.
Well, that might not be a bad way to get started on a new foreign policy.
Exactly.
Well, put up that next clip because this is from the Hill.
And this is not directly related to the green lighting issue, but this is related to the drone attacks.
We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia, Blinken said, and this is late last week, in response to a question about the strikes, before adding that the U.S. and other allies are dedicated to sending Ukrainian forces the equipment they need to defend against ongoing attacks from Russia.
So we've neither encouraged nor enabled Ukrainian strike.
I'm going to call that a lie, Dr. Paul, because I think Blinken lies a lot.
And put up this next one.
This is from the Asia Times.
And this is a report that came out also, I think it was on Friday or Saturday.
According to military sources, Ukraine missiles used U.S. guidance.
And this is massive.
Both NATO and Russian observers reject Blinken's denial of U.S. satellite involvement in the attacks on Russian bases.
So what it looks like, and actually we can put this next, went up, this is from the article.
Again, if this reporting is accurate, because we don't have it on record from a quote, but this is the Asia Times.
Essentially, the U.S. was involved in those drone strikes on Russia, including the strategic nuclear base in Russia, was involved in perhaps upgrading those old Soviet drones and also, more importantly, providing the GPS data to enable them to hit their targets.
And this is the quote, NATO sources as well as Russian military sources reject U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's claim last Tuesday that the United States had nothing to do with missile strikes.
And here's what he said.
But multiple military sources in NATO countries as well as Russia contradicted him, reporting that the reconditioned Russian TU-141 drones that Ukraine launched at Russian air bases down linked U.S. satellite GPS data to hit their targets.
That's a direct involvement by the United States on a strike on strategic Russian nuclear forces.
That's something that President Putin of Russia said could elicit a nuclear response.
If you attack our strategic nuclear forces, we may use nuclear weapons.
So the question is, if the U.S. is escalating to the point of where Putin outwardly said we may use nuclear weapons, is this really where we want to go?
Never Nuclear Threats 00:15:24
And those individuals sitting around the coffee table this morning, what they're talking about, we took care of them.
We scared the Levantales out of Russia, so they had to back off.
They see this as a success.
And they're living in a different world.
Unless, you know, I know, I believe that, you know, cultural Marxism likes chaos and likes to destroy our system because they want to rebuild it.
But I don't know if it's that blatant about their anxiousness to have, you know, nuclear war going on.
You'd think they'd be a little more cautious about that.
But I think as far as policy goes, there's a similarity to that.
You know, they provoke, and right now this is provocation, and who knows what will happen.
But this whole idea that Russia will never respond, you say, well, they started it all.
And I have my, you know, I don't endorse the Russian policy, but what I don't endorse is our policy of provoking and creating a situation that woke up the Russians to this point.
And there's never going to be 100% right or wrong on either side, except in our position, I think, avoiding these problems and trying to settle them.
But we should be honest in analyzing this.
Who did the most recent provocation?
And of course, we've dated it.
You've already mentioned the woman that was involved in it.
So 2014 is a big year for all this.
And there once was a radio broadcaster interviewer that said, Ron, you keep bringing this stuff about the coup in 1953.
And he says, I'm not interested in your history.
I'm interested in our history.
History is interested in you, as the Soviets would say.
Let's move on to our next story because this is something we haven't talked a lot about.
Actually, because it happened after our Thursday show, but it really is fascinating.
Put this next one up.
And this is the exchange, the prisoner exchange, between women's basketball player Brittany Griner, I think you pronounce it, and notorious Russian arms merchant Victor Bout.
And the article that you sent over earlier says, Putin says more U.S.-Russian prisoner exchanges are possible.
There's been a lot of commentary about this exchange, Dr. Paul, a lot of criticism of the Biden administration, because there are other Americans that have been there longer, some of them with possible connections to the U.S. government, but you have a popular figure in the U.S. sporting world who takes a lot of woke boxes.
Let's just put it that way.
And she basically cuts to the head of the line.
That at least is the perception among a lot of Americans about this.
So what are your thoughts?
Well, I want to let our viewers know that we talked about this on, you know, is this the most important issue?
We like to pick the most important, what our viewers might want or what phone calls we've had.
What do you think about this?
And sometimes there's two things that are pretty important.
I think that's one of those things happening this morning.
But I would say politically speaking, if you're picking the one that's been the biggest headlines in the television, it has to do with this swap of prisoners.
This is a big deal and may end up being a much bigger problem.
So when we did that, then we decided, well, you're going to pick on this.
Not many people know about what's going on in Ukraine at the present time.
And that's another motivation we have because that's a big issue.
And it says, we're talking about nuclear weapons and some serious problems.
So we decided to talk about that first.
But this is a big issue.
The American people are interested in that.
And because there's two issues there, they have some guy here.
He uses weapons.
He's made a couple bucks.
And He's not a libertarian.
He's not in an honest business.
But then you have Griner.
She's involved.
And there's people who that becomes a woke issue.
It's the wokey people against the criminal element that sells weapons around the world.
But the one thing that struck me on this, and we might talk a little bit about it, is the whole thing is, yes, he was a bad guy, and the weapons ended up in the bad hands.
He made a lot of money.
He was finally arrested under a law and he was a bad guy.
And the Russians are laughing through their teeth.
They let this guy go that hates America.
At the same time, they let go a person which has been described in the paper Reiner as a person who hates America.
So the whole thing is just nonsense about what's happening there.
But the weapons industry, he must have sold a lot of weapons, distributed a lot of weapons.
And I wonder if he's ever distributed something made in America.
So anyway, he's involved.
And it's something that we have to be aware of.
And I want to talk about that.
Is where do most of these weapons come from?
Who's manufacturing all these weapons?
And who has been more than there's been more than Vault who's been involved in weapons business?
And this is a deal, but it involves a military industrial complex against the wokes people.
Where are we going to get our chance to talk about this?
I don't know, though.
I think Riktor Vaut may actually be more libertarian than you think, right?
Because he's a free market guy.
He's not beholden to any government.
He'll sell to anyone as long as you've got the bucks.
I mean, he may, he never knows.
He may be.
But he's never heard about the higher law.
Yeah.
He has no conscience.
It seems that way.
But let's think about you're mentioning about him.
I mean, he's demonized, and he's been demonized in the U.S. because he's a weapons dealer.
And we're conditioned to believe.
And I believe it's horrible.
The global trade in weapons is awful, obviously.
But it's one of those biblical things where you see kind of a splinter in someone else's eye, but it's kind of tough to see the log in your own because, and you sent this over to me, but it's very, very good and important because look at this next clip.
Who's the biggest weapons dealer?
Global arms sales grow for seventh consecutive year, reached $592 billion in 2021.
The U.S. accounts for, and we can do this next one, over 50% of the global arms trade is the U.S. government.
51%, according to CIPRI, which is an organization that monitors this.
And we can see that in graph form if you look at this next clip, it's a kind of a pie graph in a way.
But there you see the United States, massive, massive, well over half.
The next closest is China at 18.
So United States, 51% of the global market.
Our next competitor, those evil ChiComs, with only 18%.
And you'd say, well, hang on.
Victor Bout sold to only the bad guys, and we sell to only the good guys.
But then you scratch your head and you think, hmm, the Saudis as they slaughter Yemen.
What about the weapons we gave to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
What about the weapons we gave to Al-Qaeda in Libya?
What about the $20 billion of weapons we left behind in Afghanistan and so on and so forth?
So we don't have a clean slate on this, Dr. Paul.
I can't believe that.
I'm un-American.
This is a major problem.
We've talked about the military industrial complex for a long time.
We'll continue to do it because it is profiteering.
And for defending our country, We could spend a lot less money.
Matter of fact, when I see this and say, oh, well, you've got to be strong on national defense.
You have to be strong on national defense, or you're an American.
But when I see it being done, and our interventions and our, you know, showing our true strengths in our airplanes and all this, I said, that makes me feel less safe.
But I want to just use a quote from another article we had looked at because it talks about some of the motivations on what happens here.
To make matters worse, a full $45 billion fund authorized by the new bill for Islam Pentagon didn't even ask for all these extra things.
You know, it was just a $45 billion because they want to change the arrangement.
And then everybody loves it.
And there was one sentence in here that I think people will identify with.
And they pay a lot of attention to it because they want to, and they use the most greatest political effect is what these lobbyists are looking for.
And here's the quote: No member wants to vote against jobs in their district.
Hence, the pension for buying weapons we don't need at prices we can't afford.
You know, that's pretty good because it is so clear that we've talked about that before, like the F-35, and we might talk about that later too.
But with the F-35, there's something, I think, in every state, and the plane doesn't work.
I mean, the plane is, they say it's into the trillions of dollars now, and they never think it'll be even if it worked, it would be an offensive weapon.
It wouldn't be a defensive weapon.
Well, we're going to talk about the military spending bill, and we have an article that we're going to go into.
But before we do, I do want to say, you know, in uncertain times, when you're spending well over a trillion and a half, probably dollars a year on the military, you're going to see inflation.
Inflation means higher prices, and the higher prices mean it's tough to take care of your family.
We know about global food chain supply problems, and that's why I just want to mention the sponsor of our show, 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com.
This is a great American company, and they basically just help make sure that you can secure your food supply, that you can keep yourself and your family warm in uncertain times, and they simplify the process tremendously.
You take their food, you boil it, you simmer it, and you serve it.
Breakfasts, lunch, and dinners.
It's a great way with all the bad news we have, Dr. Paul, what you can do is defend and protect yourself.
Enter Ron when you go to 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com.
Enter Ron for a 10% discount on your first purchase.
And of course, delicious food is coming your way, and you'll get free shipping if you spend over $97.
Get a three-month supply for your family would be my recommendation.
And it'll keep for 25 years.
Use it if you need to.
Use it when you need to.
Even just in bad weather, you don't want to go out in an ice storm.
Cook up some of this food.
So 4patriots.com, put in Ron, get your supply today.
Very good.
And you mentioned about the spending bill.
The new spending bill squanders billions of dysfunctional weapons.
What will the arms deals do?
Will they be selling?
Will they be selling them without a warranty?
Oh boy, you missed your target.
It's bad that we joke, but it's not really a joke.
It's just disgust with what's going on.
But there's a lot of weaponry going on.
And I don't know if you read this, but if you did, you probably could explain it.
They were wanting to change the way they ordered the weapons, too.
And there was a benefit to that.
There's always another angle where it looks like we're locking in our promises for a longer period of time.
I think what they ignore, and I've never figured out the easy answer, is we're not allowed to appropriate money for more than two years for anything for military.
But then you get into the authorization, and authorization is slightly different.
It's a promise.
And then by that, if it's authorized, it's almost automatically you will get the appropriation, but the two are mixed up.
But anyway, they'd like to even change it to benefit the arms manufacturer even more than it does already.
Because the disgusting thing about this is I bet you've heard that every once in a while they have a cost overrun.
Yeah, a couple times.
Several times for one event.
So that the cost of runs are going over all the time.
So it's automatically, they never have to worry about it.
Nobody would vote, I would, against just perpetuating a bad deal.
It's a tragedy.
It is.
And let's put up this clip because we do have to give credit.
This is from Responsible Statecraft.
And it's written by Bill Hartoon, William Hartoon, who's been around for a long time, is considered a very, very seasoned analyst and reporter.
And I highly recommend this short article that packs a lot of information in it.
In fact, it packs the core problem that we do our best to try to discuss during the show.
But the title is New Spending Bill Squanders Billions and You Got It on Dysfunctional Weapons Programs.
And that is such a key term.
And he goes into, like you say, the F-35.
He goes into why are we building new aircraft carriers when you have hypersonic missiles, when you have the ability to just blow them out of the water.
And let's put on the next one.
Here's a good quote from this, because this really encapsulates the whole point.
This is from Bill's article.
The bill calls for near-record levels of Pentagon spending.
Here's a kicker, Dr. Paul.
But it chooses to devote much of the funding to costly, dysfunctional weapon systems that are ill-suited to addressing current challenges, largely because many of the weapons boosted in the NDAA were chosen based on where they are built, not whether they are the best systems for defending the United States and its allies.
So these are political goals that dominate the NDA, that dominate our military spending.
Political goals, not military goals, i.e. defending the United States.
So I would just say that politicizing our national defense means that we are essentially undefended.
They're not taking into account the real threats.
They're taking into account, as you point out, well, I've got some stuff in my district.
I better get some over here in this district.
And it's all about the money.
And that's why we're critically actually undefended.
We would argue that we are undefended in the United States, not that we are overdefending.
It's because of politics.
You know, there's no doubt that so much of this is dysfunctional, the whole process, the policy is dysfunctional.
Still Fighting World War II 00:02:01
And sometimes we will say, you know, they're still fighting World War II.
Yeah.
The B-52 was built right at the end of World War II.
And I can remember when I was serving my duty in the Air Force, as a flight surgeon, one of the places we stopped was in Guam.
And I was impressed.
I'd never been to Guam.
And the B-52s were just lined up there, and it was a long way off to Vietnam.
And that's when they just started.
And I said, you know, the initial reaction wasn't a good one in a way, because they're never going to use these.
They built all this.
Isn't this sort of a sad thing?
You didn't even need them or something like that.
But anyway, within months, they were using them.
And of course, the B-52s flew many thousands of miles, you know, flying over there and bombing that city, bombing that country.
We dropped more bombs in that country than we dropped in World War II.
So we're still not only fighting World War II.
When I look at some of the pictures of Ukraine right now, I know there's a lot of electronics and different technologies now that they use, but there's still some buildings there, the way they live and what's happened to the people.
It reminds me some of the pictures of what we saw in World War I. You know, the tragedy to the civilian population is always the same.
And if you look at it and say, the civilian are really this victims, it's the same old thing again.
You could go back to even our Civil War and other places.
The civilians are the ones who suffer the most.
It's a tragedy.
That's why there is a great effort and a great advantage for us to be able to defend the policy of peace rather than war.
And yet people see that as, well, yeah, we like that, but that's weak.
Tragedy Of Civilian Suffering 00:02:10
We don't want to have somebody that's so weak that's not willing to show strength, you know, and teach them a lesson.
And that was more or less the same language right now against Russia.
You know, we'll show them and we'll discipline them.
I do want to, before we close, I'll give a shout out to Gypsy Magic who kicked in $10 on our Rumble rants and pointed out that we trade a woke basketball star while we ignore maybe pardoning, of course, pardoning Ed Snowden over in Russia.
I would point out that maybe the next trade, we didn't talk about Paul Whelan, and we probably should have, maybe we will in the future.
He was accused of involved in espionage in the U.S.
And that may well be the case.
He denies it.
But if it is the case, that means he's acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
There should be more efforts to help get him out, in my opinion.
Here is a humble suggestion from me, Dr. Paul.
If I had Putin's ear, and I don't, despite what people think, right, I would say, here's a good idea.
Offer to send back Paul Whelan in exchange for the U.S. sending Julian Assange to Russia.
It would make a great point about who really values freedom of the press.
Who knows if that'll happen.
But I do want to make one final point.
If you can put that final, final clip up.
It's kind of an announcement.
Keep going to the very last one if you can.
This happened to me on Sunday.
Dr. Paul was getting ready for church.
I clicked onto my inbox and I got a note from Twitter.
It said, after further review, we have unsuspended your account as it does not appear to be in violation of the Twitter rules.
Now, this is my personal Twitter account, Daniel L. McAdams.
And I was banned, if you remember Dr. Paul, for a harmless joke about Sean Hannity back in 2019.
And no matter how many times I appealed, I was banned.
I was banned.
I was banned.
Now, all of a sudden, under the Elon Musk regime, I get this note saying, well, it was a mistake all along.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
And I do appreciate it.
I appreciate being reinstated because it was a mistake.
But I think under the previous regime, for those two and a half, three and a half years, however long it was, you know, being frozen out for no real good reason, it did cause a lot of harm.
I mean, maybe even commercial harm.
Unsuspension And Concern 00:02:40
And so I just wonder, Jonathan Turley, and we haven't talked about this.
He's got a great piece about potential lawsuits coming out of, and even criminal prosecution for people like Jack, the founder of Twitter, who lied under oath.
So a lot to do.
I'm happy to be back on Twitter in a way.
I don't know if I'm going to be active in it, but just on principle, I'm happy to be back on Twitter.
Very good.
For one, I'm not overconfident that the new Congress and the Republicans running the House all of a sudden will change things a whole lot.
The to-be speaker said that 51 people that participated mostly in January 6th and abused civil liberties of a lot of people will be called to testify.
Now, that I think is a good idea to find out what really went on, who was telling the lies, who was doing the provoking.
And they don't hardly talk about it.
I haven't heard it.
Why didn't they, during the campaign and all?
Why can't we look at the film?
People are allowing to prosecute these people, putting them in prison and all the kind of abuse.
And it was a one-sided trial.
And they say, oh, no, this is just a hearing.
Yeah, but some of them are going to jail and they've been in jail without due process of law.
So, you know, there's so much that could be done.
And I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I'll tell you what, if the American people don't wake up and demand that they get some answers here, it'll just continue.
That does not mean that I think the first week they should impeach the president, because I think that's a political stunt.
It wouldn't have meaning right now.
But trying to get to the bottom of the people that lied, and especially the people that were there to protect our liberties and protect us against the bad guys.
And then the police, the FBI, they become the real culprits.
And a country can't last like that.
And that's why I think our country is getting weaker and weaker.
I talk about a coup.
There's been a coup.
It's hard to identify, but there's been a coup, and they have control of the security apparatus as well as the military apparatus, the media apparatus.
And the American individual, the American people are really at a loss when it comes to their personal civil liberties.
So what Daniel just mentioned is encouraging.
If they're moving Daniel back into the mainstream, we have it about Mays.
That's wonderful.
But I do want to thank for the encouragement we get from our viewers.
That is very necessary for us.
And when we hear from you, we're delighted.
Export Selection