Thomas Massie Versus The Dragons: Will A New 'Church Committee' Unmask The Deep State?
US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been assured a place - if not Chair - of a new Congressional Committee to get to the bottom of US law enforcement and intelligence agencies' involvement in US internal politics. Will this new "Church Committee" help drain the deep state swamp? Also today: Does McCarthy bring vision to the 118th Congress? Here's his opening agenda. Finally: Is it true that House Republicans will reduce the military budget?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel Mick Adams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
Sunny skies outside.
Yes, nice day.
Just the things going well.
The country's been saved.
You know, we have a new speaker.
I have to admit, though, I'm not a champion of exactly what they've been doing out there.
But I tell you what, a few of the people they got rid of, it's a great idea.
But the Republic can't rest yet.
There's still some.
But we want to talk about one individual that we believe, and I believe personally, and we know, matter of fact, I knew him before he was elected.
I think maybe there was a week of overlapping as he was coming into the Congress.
I was getting ready to leave and rest my weary soul.
But he has done a great job.
And that, of course, is Thomas Massey from Kentucky.
They have several in Kentucky.
Good guy.
But he was not part of the 20.
But as we discussed earlier, I always argued on procedures that there's a little bit of flexibility on what you do.
No flexibility on the philosophy and how you vote and how you spend the money in the Ophus office.
But strategy and what you do and who you talk to and things like that, I think is okay.
So I think the committee actually came out.
You know, the 20 original holders backs, they achieved something because some changes got.
And I think we have benefited because Thomas Massey is in a position that I'll tell you what, is going to be very beneficial to us.
So he's been appointed to what is the Judicial Committee or?
A new church committee, yeah.
Oh, the new committee.
Okay.
He's been important.
And that's what we need because, you know, I've always argued commissions, you know, whether it's the Kennedy Commission or the 9-11 Commission or especially January 6th Commission and hearings.
It's either to cover up big mistakes or, you know, just lie through their teeth or confirm exactly what has been going on.
But anyway, this is necessary to find out.
And I think he has promised one thing.
And if he promised it, he will.
And if he finds out, hears about or knows about anything that is illegal, and that means unconstitutional to Thomas, that he will be letting us, not you and me, the country know.
And hopefully the subtle and maybe minor, hopefully major shifts in the Congress, they'll pay more attention to it.
So right now, you know, you'd have to say we've heard a lot of good talking, you know, cutting the budget and even entertaining thoughts about foreign policy and things like that.
I didn't hear anybody say, well, you know what?
If you didn't have a Federal Reserve, you couldn't do any of this stuff.
That hasn't been said yet, except in the past.
But anyway, we're very glad that he ended up getting on at least the promise.
It would be heresy if he was denied that after them telling that.
And so I'm glad about that.
The one thing, the one thing you should feel good about, and we do, is you can trust what he says.
You know, otherwise, it's just canned propaganda.
And I would say both sides are capable of that.
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, everyone was saying at the time, because we talked about it a lot last week, it was a big brouhaha.
The 20 holdouts was a big deal.
And everyone was saying, Where's Massey?
Where's Massey?
I got a lot of emails.
Where's Massey?
Why is he not out there?
I try to explain your position that maybe this isn't the hill to die on.
And so we, of course, were speculating.
We haven't spoken with him.
But perhaps this is where Massey was.
Maybe he was stayed out of this fight because he was talking to potential or future leadership about something that really is important, which is to get to the bottom of the secret intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies' involvement in our internal politics.
And he had a lot of leverage because I think he very easily could have gone over with the 20 and kept that going.
So he was in a great position.
And of course, I am speculating, but he's a smart, smart, smart person.
I think he may have realized how much leverage he had and credibility he has with both sides that he could parlay his position into a position on this future committee.
And let's put up this first clip because this is from the Daily Caller and this is what we're talking about.
Representative Massey confirms seat on church committee, vows to reveal any illegal or unconstitutional government acts.
And we actually have a clip, a video clip that we're going to put up, and it's a little longer than we usually do, starting at the one-minute mark, if we can start getting that queued up, and going to the two-minute and 18 mark.
And this is where Representative Massey tells you exactly what the agenda is for it.
Let's give it a listen.
Dr. Paul, you might want to put it in.
Here we go.
And his plan, we have just learned, is to appoint really one of the most honest and dogged members of Congress.
We'll just say it, Thomas Massey of Kentucky, to head that committee, the new church committee run by Congressman Thomas Massey, who, by the way, joins us now to announce it.
Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.
Thanks, Tucker.
It looks like I'll probably be on that committee, but I can't say that I will run it.
I will say that, you know, while we've seen this drama unplay on the House floor behind the scenes, along with those people who withheld their vote for Kevin McCarthy until they got the transformational changes in the House and the way the House works, we were working to make sure that this church committee, a suggestion that you've had, and thank you for suggesting that I should be on it.
I don't know if you're clairvoyant or just made the future happen, but it's happening.
We were making sure that this committee wasn't going to be fenced in, that it wasn't just going to be a show committee.
We wanted to make sure that we have full jurisdiction, that if we stumble onto something at another three-letter agency, that they don't say, whoa, that's out of your jurisdiction.
Or if we find out there's more than a violation of the First Amendment rights, if there are other civil rights that are being violated, we've secured a guarantee that we can go wherever the evidence leads us.
So everyone who's attempted this, and few have attempted it, but Frank Church certainly attempted it, and the Congress attempted it again in 1976 with their.
Dr. Paul, so I'm afraid, sorry that you didn't get a chance to hear it.
But he's basically saying how this came about and what this new committee is going to do and what the plans are.
And it's very important.
Here's another quote from this interview that you can put on the next clip because he says explicitly, and this is what you made reference to, a very important point.
If we can, I don't know if we here we go.
He says a lot of this is going to play out down in the SCIF, which is a secure compartmentalized information facility.
Massey told Carlson, you're going to have to trust the people that are put on this committee.
And I'll tell you what, if there's something fishy going on, I'll come out of the skiff and tell you.
But a lot of it will be behind closed doors.
It will be classified information.
If we find anything illegal or unconstitutional, we'll bring it forward.
That's a pretty bold promise on his part.
He's not going to tolerate keeping these things secret.
And one of the things he did say in this little clip with Carlson is that he's going to look at the involvement of not only the FBI but other three-letter agencies in the internal politics of the United States.
And obviously, a lot of this, thanks to Elon Musk, has come out because of the Twitter files where we know how involved the CIA and the FBI have been in our internal politics.
You know, I think Thomas has picked the right target.
You know, this is it.
He's going to have to deal with understanding and digging out what's going on about the deep state.
Has there been a coup of government, which I believe in, because I don't believe that there's much that Congress is independent on, whether it's going to war or spending money or running the Fed or whatever.
There's so much influence.
So Thomas is in there.
He's not going to have a whole lot of people.
I remember when I was on the Gold Commission, there were 17 people that were on the Gold Commission, but there was only one other who was somewhat sympathetic to gold.
So there's not going to be much support in the committee.
So, but this, you know, this whole idea of looking into the intelligent agencies and this whole principle of wokeism and how they threaten and intimidate.
I mean, that is where the secret government is.
That's what we've been talking about.
And a lot of people recognize it, but they don't quite understand it.
And it's hard to totally understand it because sometimes it seems so outrageous on what they do.
But, you know, it really came to light in a way, maybe this whole thing about what they were doing on, you know, lockdown.
It was so outrageous that, you know, even the average mother housewife waking up, what are they doing to our kids?
So this is going to do a lot of good, and especially when it gets very, very political and what the FBI was doing.
And what I've complained about, the FBI for a couple years now, and also the CIA.
Look how long the CIA has been very, very much involved.
And already, one of the things that Thomas has to put up with is that almost every committees are going to be secret, which in a way are required to get the information out.
But he might have a real burden because he may hear some stuff that you look, you can't say this.
I don't know.
That'll be a might be a real challenge for him, but I know which side he'll lean on, and that is getting to the truth and getting it out if all possible.
And, you know, a person of lesser character, I'm thinking of Adam Schiff, he used the secretness of the January 6th committee to tell a bunch of lies, a pack of lies about Trump's involvement with the Russians, etc.
And then we said, well, show us the proof.
Well, I can't show you.
It's secret.
So we know, we can rest assured that Massey is a person of great personal character.
We know that for a fact.
That's absolutely true.
I think one of the challenges he's going to have, and that's why I think he's the perfect person for the job, one of the challenges he's going to have is to not make it look like a political witch hunt against the Biden administration.
You know, Massey's demonstrated his willingness to work across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans of goodwill.
It's going to be difficult for him, I think, because he's going to have a lot of pressure from his side to make it look political and to politicize it.
But I think it won't be successful unless he's able to strike that balance.
And he's the guy to do it.
There's no question about it.
The other thing, Dr. Paul, and you know this so well, there are literally tons of great witnesses out there that can be called.
Heck, you could even call Elon Musk.
You certainly could call Matt Taibbi, all the great journalists that have covered the Twitter files.
We personally know many former FBI and CIA officers who many of them spoke in your office when you were there.
They will have great insights into this.
So there is a huge wealth of knowledge and experience there that he can draw from to really, really get to the bottom of what's going on.
You made a good suggestion that it shouldn't look like a political witch hunt.
And that raises the question because I think conservatives and good people and some of the libertarians might be sort of split on this.
For me, the idea of, oh, we're going to teach him, we're going to impeach Biden, I happen not to think that's the greatest idea.
Matter of fact, one of my personal rules is that for it to be serious, it has to be bipartisan, just for practical reasons rather than just a political witch hunt.
And I think that's all the people have been hearing about so long.
And I think they'll recognize the difference if Thomas has his way.
And one thing is that sometimes it can be contagious.
There might be a few others on the committee that are leaning that way and really will grab hold and bear in on getting to the truth.
Professor Turley is another great witness.
Very pro-free speech.
He would be great.
There are so many great people, and I hope he has the resources.
But here's a couple of, I just put a couple of tweets together.
And both of these people would be very good.
Let's put up the next one.
This is from Ed Snowden.
And he makes a very good point in the context of the FBI and CIA involvement in our domestic politics, domestic affairs.
He says, after the last couple years, it's hard to ignore the feeling that the CIA's color revolutions are coming home.
We may come to regret spending decades normalizing the practice of disregarding elections, the precedent for ousting presidents.
Very, very astute, and I think that's very appropriate to what we're saying.
And let's do the next one, too, because Elon Musk a few days ago, that was Snowden from today.
Now, Musk went in a couple of days ago, and this is exhibit A for what his committee needs to get involved with.
U.S. government agency demanded suspension of 250,000 Twitter accounts, including journalists and Canadian officials.
And I know we've talked about this tweet before, but here you have direct evidence, thanks to Musk and the Twitter files, of the U.S. deep state intelligence community involved in our elections, involved in domestic politics.
Constitutional Backlash00:15:01
He's got a lot on his plate.
And to be honest, as we know from the senator from New York, you go against these intelligence agencies, they can get you back eight ways from Sunday.
So I worry a little bit about our friend Massey as well.
You know, this advice about, you know, if they do it to us, if we do it to others, it might be done to us.
And that is a rule that Edward is suggesting it might come back and affect us.
And that is a good reason why we shouldn't be doing this, running all, we're involved, you know, immediately today.
I said to you, you know, the few things going on in Brazil, but I didn't read about the CIA.
We sort of chuckled.
They're probably there.
You know, not much happens without it.
But that is what the way empire's in.
Finally, they overdo it and then they gang up on you.
And there's a sense of that if you're watching the dollar market very closely and what other central banks are trying to do, they're setting the stage for answering back to our aggressiveness and not only getting involved in military operations and financial, but in elections we've been involved way too long.
Yeah.
Well, let's continue a little bit on the theme of the new Congress because we just saw, thanks to our friends at Zero Hedge, basically the seven bills that would be part of the rules package opening up the new house.
And I thought maybe we would throw a couple of these up and maybe if you want to comment on some of them, how you might vote, how you might feel about them.
I think it's a mixed bag.
My personal view, I don't want to prejudice your view, Dr. Paul, it seems to be without a lot of vision.
But let's put it up anyway.
This is from Hedge.
Seven opening, go back a couple, please.
Go back one.
Yeah, there we go.
Okay.
So the first one, I think this is probably a good idea.
A bill to cut some of the additional funding.
I don't like the word some, though, Dr. Paul.
Some of the additional funding that was made available to the IRS.
We're going to cut some of it now.
We're going to cut all 87,000 new agents.
Now it's just some, but it's still, it's a good start, right?
See, yeah, it is, and we have to accept the best we can get.
But it also fits the argument that I make is the principle is still there.
You know, I argued that the principle was bad when it was 1% or 2%.
If that meant the principle is they own everything and they will tell you how much you can keep.
And so it's a violation of property rights and the whole works.
But if they're up to 80% and there's a vote to say, well, we're going to reduce it by down to 70%.
You say, well, no big deal.
I'm not going to vote for this because it's still voting for 70%.
And there's some who argue that.
I don't yell and scream at them because they say, no, you still are.
But I consider that different.
I think when you're in the middle of this and whether it's 80 or 70 and you can vote for 70, it's a piece.
And like you even started off, some.
You'd like to see just what's our position.
We don't want an IRS and that would solve a lot of our problems.
Yeah, a lot of the purists didn't like when you voted to a little bit better.
You were the right direction.
Let's look at number two really quickly.
I think we probably don't need to spend too much time on this because probably agree.
A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to turn away people crossing the border illegally.
We could probably talk about this, but I know you want to talk about the next one.
A bill that includes prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from sending petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.
I know this made a lot of headlines.
Biden is taking the oil out of our ground and sending it to China.
This to me seems a little bit like China bashing.
I don't know.
Oh, it is, and that's how they pass those kind of things.
Of course, I think when that came up, and they have a storage for oil not far from where we're sitting because there's some salt dumps there.
But no, I wasn't for it.
You know, there's no reason why we can't have storage, but to do that, it became an economic political tool.
It had nothing to do with emergency conditions where you're in a World War III or something like that.
I just think that it's totally unnecessary to do that.
And I think it is China bashing because that's why when they talk about spending and hoping for a cut, I say, well, yeah, they'll do it.
And they might even pass it until the next virus hits us.
The viruses are a lot more persuasive than anything else.
People panic, spend the money.
$10 trillion tomorrow immediately.
Well, the next one, number four, I think, and you mentioned this before, gets into some real problems with federalism.
And this is a tough on crime bill that includes amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to direct the District Attorney and Prosecutor's Office to report to the Attorney General.
This seems like a power grab on the state's attorney general's.
Yeah, I think that whole process would surprise the founders.
I don't think they set it up.
They talked about not having a police force in Washington.
Of course, we do have a police force, and it's the bureaucracy, it's the security agencies and everything else.
Can you argue that the CIA and the FBI and what they do, just because they don't have an Army uniform on?
They are the enforcers of the police state, and it's something that the propaganda machine is pretty successful because I would say in the early years, that's a good many years ago, I had some sympathies for the FBI because I knew a few, and they did have, there was probably much more character associated with it, but that has totally deteriorated.
You know, the power was corrupting, and that's why we have the agencies that way.
The founders were right.
Don't get started with that stuff.
Yeah.
Well, number five, I could hear our colleague Adam Dick squeal from across the state because he was, he still does the civil liberties and Second Amendment issues.
And I think this one is probably the worst of all.
A bill to require a national instant crime background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies when information surfaces that a person present in the U.S. illegally may be trying to obtain a firearm.
These kinds of national databases are dangerous.
You fought against them for years and years.
Yeah, and it's typical if they see an opening and a sympathy like China is an opening in foreign policy, and we can always find bad things they're doing.
And here it is.
Oh, yes, there's law enforcement at the borders.
We have to do whatever is necessary.
And then they use it to attack the Second Amendment.
So it's a terrible.
And I don't know how that would play out right now.
You'd think there'd be more people in the Congress that would be sympathetic to what we're saying.
Who knows?
Who knows?
Well, the next one is tricky.
A bill to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions.
It's probably an easy yes, right?
But you have this problem with the federal government encroaching on this overturning of Roe v. Wade, which you thought was great because it threw it back to the states.
But now the government is, the federal government is trying to get its teeth in.
I don't know how to use it.
Well, if you're going to prohibit taxpayer funding, we're talking, I don't think they emphasize the state.
They were emphasizing the federal government.
Yeah, I'd do it.
And even if it's in the military, I mean, if it's something that you come down on the side of morality and the Constitution and the principles, I don't think I'd feel guilty of anything if I voted against taxpayer funding for the military.
Matter of fact, it might even be a good argument on the quality of the military operation, running an abortion clinic, this sort of thing.
I mean, that's worth considering.
Well, the last one, I don't know how you feel about it.
We haven't talked about this beforehand.
It's a bill to amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code to prohibit health care practitioners from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
So you can't refuse to treat the child after a failed abortion.
Well, no, that should be totally unnecessary.
And one of the tragedies is the transition of medicine by the doctor-patient relationship to what we just went through with COVID.
People accept the fact, well, the government's protecting us against COVID, you know, and taking good care of us.
The government should make these decisions.
They shouldn't have any of this.
You know, there was a time when doctors did take it more seriously that there was a code of ethics.
But if it came down to something legal or not legal, the furthest that you should even attempt to go is just to the state.
And that's why I think the people who wanted the abortion wasn't fair and balanced.
You know, they made it sound like immediately every clinic is going to be closed down and all that.
And I imagine when the dust settles, they'll be doing it.
And it is an issue that should be at the states.
But ultimately, it's an issue for the morality of the people and also the ethics of the doctors.
But not this kind of stuff, to set up what they can do or can't do or must do.
That'd be more than you have to have.
And I don't think it'd be successful.
We've got a mixed bag.
We'll have to wait and see.
But I had to throw this.
I haven't told you about this before.
I had to throw this because I knew you'd get a kick out if we could put this next clip up.
This is McCarthy.
Now, this is back in November after the election.
This is kind of symbolism over substance.
He says, on the very first day of the new Republican-led Congress, we will read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House, something that hasn't been done in years.
So they're going to read the Constitution out loud.
You know, that's when, you know, I think there was a story about somebody that got elected, and he sort of embellished his resume.
And he got elected.
I imagine he participated in getting the new speaker.
So he did that.
And I got to thinking, you know, it's terrible.
What would I do?
Would I throw him out?
I said, let his constituents decide.
I mean, if a member gets really, really off-base, there's ways of expelling somebody from the Congress.
But I didn't think that was necessary.
But I was thinking about this lying business.
I mean, you would think that most people would endorse it.
This isn't true.
Isn't this just a joke?
He embellished and wrote this up, and he was testing the Congress to see how far they go and the people.
But I think they should be held to the feet of the fire on what they say.
And the one that I would is on the night when they finally get sworn into Congress.
Every single one of them got sworn in, except a couple, but they weren't withholding because of what I'm talking about.
But everybody, they raised their right hand and swore under oath that I will obey the Constitution.
But from our viewpoint, the Constitution is violaTedrosly every single day they're doing up there.
And they're so far removed what the Constitution says.
And they have a whole interpretation.
But it would have been a wonderful opportunity to point out, you know, how can you do this?
They would argue, well, the Constitution doesn't say this.
Well, just read the words, you know.
But it's a shame that somebody didn't make the point that they lie through their teeth, most of them, because there's so much violation of the Constitution.
Yeah.
Well, the last one we want to touch on a little bit was a little bit of good news we heard on Friday, but this is when it was still an open case as to whether McCarthy might be elected.
And we're going to cross our fingers on this one.
Let's put it up.
This is from Responsible Statecraft, and this is something they put up when there was still blood in the aisles.
Actually, there was almost literally blood in the House.
I don't know if you're saying Mike Rogers was trying to take on Matt Gates.
That was pretty wild, almost like Ukrainian parliament.
But here it is.
This is from the 6th.
McCarthy weighing $75 billion defense budget cut in quest for speakership.
That's pretty interesting.
Let's go to the next one because here is the details.
After days of negotiation, now remember he's not yet speaker when this was written.
McCarthy is considering cutting the Pentagon budget by $75 billion to gain the support of roughly two dozen Republicans who oppose his bid to become Speaker, according to Bloomberg.
The cut is reportedly part of an emerging deal that would cap government spending at 2022 levels, meaning it would return defense spending to only $782 billion, a sharp drop from this year's allotment of $857 billion.
I say I believe it when I see it, but still it's a glimmer of good news.
Yeah, when I heard about it, I sent you a note and say, we need to watch this and find out what the final result will be.
And, you know, they could actually do it.
It was a promise, and they go along with it and cut it by $75 billion, which I happen to believe wouldn't mean a thing because they lie through legislation as well.
They pass legislation, and then maybe they could pass it in the House, and the Senate agrees that never, never passed that.
So it just goes on and on.
And they can put the money back in.
So it's policy, it's policy.
What was this money for?
Oh, well, probably, well, each day it wasn't billions.
Sometimes it was hundreds of billions of dollars that we want to send to Ukraine.
And that war is expanding as far as finances go.
So this is not, you know, it doesn't make any sense for them not to cut it in reality.
But the reason I made that point to you was this is a test between, let's say the House is sincere, and they're going to, but it's tight.
It's a tight vote.
It's a test of the deep state.
Yeah.
It will tell us what would happen and find out, you know, if it's a real tight vote.
Watch the vote like we watch for the Speaker to see.
But you know what?
The deep state works more quickly and they send out their warnings and they set the standards and they know what the rules are.
And besides, it's patriotic to vote for national defense.
I mean, you don't want to be told you're unpatriotic.
So that's the shame.
So it's good.
The point was made, but I think we can make a bigger point if we follow up on it.
Test of the Deep State00:02:41
You know, next week or next month or whatever.
Remember that $75 billion?
It's now $150.
Yeah.
That's the trick, is convincing them that this is not defense spending, this is military spending.
Well, here's a way to convince them.
And this is my, I'm going to close with this, Dr. Paul, because I think this tweet says everything you need to know.
We flushed $100 billion down Ukraine this past year.
Here is Ukraine's foreign minister, Dmitro Kuliba.
He says, Ukraine is grateful to partners for their military aid, but we should remain honest with one another.
No one has done enough.
And he goes on to say, as long as Russian boots.
So basically, $100 billion from us, God knows how much from the Europeans.
And here's this guy saying, yeah, thanks a lot for the money.
But you know what?
You haven't done enough.
That's gratitude for you.
You know, there's an answer to that that could be political and it should have been flashed in their face.
And that is when you have a lot of deficits and you print the money, it undermines the economy for the poor people in the middle class.
It has to be paid for.
They should get a picture of our homeless people in the streets and how many people do suffer, even though that number is not gigantic, but it's significant.
And for them, it is, and it varies from state to state and all these things.
But they should just say, look, these are the people that are paying for your extravagance.
And what will happen with this war in Ukraine?
We no more need or feel responsible for fighting the war than a man in the moon and just no more.
That's what the vote should be.
Any money for Ukraine?
And there's a few more doing now.
We've talked about it that past year.
There are some, you know where it's coming from, the people.
Remember, they listen to the argument.
Why are we doing this?
Worrying about the borders between Russia and Ukraine.
Why don't we worry about what's going on on our southern border?
And they're responding.
Our biggest handicap is the microphone.
We don't have the microphone.
We don't have the control like the FBI has of the social media, and we don't have control of the mainstream media, so it marches on.
And that is why the First Amendment is so important: our ability to speak out and explain to the people because just think how many lies were told about COVID.
And now we're finding out that people die from heart attacks, and the numbers are much higher than they've been willing to admit.
And they don't have a really, really good test to, and they're not interested in testing to find out if people have been injured, you know, with the COVID virus and the vaccine.
The Power of Speech00:01:12
So I think that it's very important for us to realize how important it is to get the government out of our way.
We want separation of church and state, but we want separation of people and state.
People don't need the state to live.
In economics, we know the least the government and the Federal Reserve does in a recession, the quicker it's over and the least people suffer.
But nobody has hands-off.
I mean, Roosevelt has changed that for good coming out of the Depression.
Matter of fact, Hoover contributed to that change of attitude.
You just can't have hands off, and yet taking care of people, and even in medicine, there's a you know, part of medicine is just keep your hands off.
Maybe just take it easy.
Maybe there's an easier treatment.
But that should be voluntary and decided by individuals and not by bureaucrats.
And certainly, don't depend on Dr. Feld Chin anymore.
He's supposed to retire, but just try to forget about him.
If you forget about him and you don't ask him for anything, I'm going to forget about talking about him.