All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
25:26
Where's The Police Raid? Media Double Standards As Biden Think Tank Found With Classified Docs

President Biden's University of Pennsylvania think tank has been illegally in possession of classified documents from when Biden was vice president. The same media cheering raids on Trump's house for the same "crime" are strangely silent this time. Also today: The US military has finally cancelled its Covid vax mandate...but is the damage already done. Finally: Step away from that gas stove!

|

Time Text
Classified Documents Controversy 00:14:23
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Doing well.
Good, good.
Lots of news.
We have to try to solve a problem, you know.
Yeah.
And we never know.
Every once in a while we do, but we don't know exactly what happens for all this information we're putting out.
But I know one thing, I feel good about it, that we reach a lot of people, and I didn't realize that we might be able to do this on a shoestring.
And yeah, we have some days we have a lot of people watching.
We always like to.
So I hope we have a lot of people today, a lot of viewers.
And if not, the message will be still out there.
But I want to start off with, can you believe it that in Washington you can find these double standards?
You know, that you have, oh, some people do it, and if you are sort of, you know, high up.
And even sometimes it's just being high up, Republican or Democrat, but sometimes it's the Democrats over the Republican.
So it's not fair and equal.
So anyway, but the double standard we want to talk about today is something that I'm sure if you lean toward justice, if you lean toward Republicanism, if you lean toward conservatism, if you're even a libertarian, you can say, why is the Delbert standard, you know, a lot of us would try to figure what technically did Trump do with the, you know, the privacy and the papers that he had?
Was it an infraction and that sort of thing?
Well, he got into a lot of trouble.
We know about that.
And I think it's driven by hate, but that's just my opinion.
Driven by hate and all politically motivated has very little to do with justice.
But we have something to compare it to.
Another president, I think he's still in office.
I mean, in body.
He's still in office.
And lo and behold, you know, these secret documents, classified documents found in one of his offices.
My goodness, that's carelessness, I would think.
So there's a lot of noise about this.
And the view, the view that has nothing to view with because they don't see anything, nor do they hear anything.
The view argues that Biden, they're friends.
Biden deserves, quote, the benefit of the doubt.
Yes.
Well, you know, there's times when I think the benefit of the doubt is okay.
Matter of fact, on some issues, if you're arguing, are you really having an act of aggression and you have to interpret something, always lean in favor of the libertarian position, you know.
But here, the benefit of the doubt on classified documents.
So I would say that I know a little bit about this, not a whole lot.
We learn as we go along, but this is not exactly a brand new problem.
I would say that I'm not much interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I would like to see some way of taking care of this by maybe declassifying everything.
Just leave it out there.
That might solve it.
It's too much.
There's way too much secret, tens of thousands of pages.
I think it's probably conceivable that some of that stuff gets lost or easily stolen.
But this whole idea, the point here is it's not only the view, it's basically all Democrats, not one Democrat are going to stand up and say, you know, we ought to try to be consistent.
You know, if Biden did exactly what we're condemning Trump for, we should call on.
He making, you know, call on this sort of thing.
But anyway, it's out there, and I imagine not a lot of honesty is going to come from it, but at least it deserves discussion.
Yeah.
And we'd make a lot of pointing out double standards and hypocrisy for what it's worth, which is not much.
But we all remember the raid on Trump's place down in Florida, Mar-a-Lago.
We remember the armed, the armed agents of the federal government breaking into his place and taking the documents.
CNN was on hand, of course.
They were all tipped off.
It was all on camera.
Obviously, there was a point to what happened.
But there is a difference, and there are many differences.
One of them, of course, is that the president does have the authority to declassify materials, and the vice president does not.
And these documents were taken when Biden was a vice president, and so he was not entitled to have them or declassify them.
That is the case.
We can put up this first clip because this is what we're talking about.
We noticed it in Zero Heads about the show The View, which I have to say I have never seen and never want to see.
They've argued that there's a difference.
There's a difference.
Biden isn't Trump.
And in fact, Joy Behar, who's one of the people on The View, she said the quiet part out loud, as Benny Johnson pointed out on Twitter, quote, here's what she said.
Here's the host of a TV show.
We all know that Trump is a liar and a thief.
We don't think Biden is a liar and thief.
So we're giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Very, very clearly.
Without double standards, they would have no standards at all.
The Gateway Pundit, which is a right-wing, I believe, news site, let's put up that next one.
They basically point out what we are saying.
When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden?
Trump responds to reports of classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank that I would not want to visit, I don't think.
But, Dr. Paul, I say we leave the final word on this to Biden himself because he has some thoughts about senior officials mishandling classified documents.
You're going to want to put on your earphones, Dr. Paul, and listen to this, because this is our president discussing Trump's mishandling of classified documents.
Let's listen to the president.
And you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago.
What did you think to yourself looking at that image?
How that could possibly happen.
How anyone could be that irresponsible?
And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods?
By that, I mean names of people who helped, et cetera.
And just totally irresponsible.
And you don't know.
How could anybody be so irresponsible?
Well, you know, I don't know whether this is double.
It's his standards.
They're pretty consistent.
Lies are pretty consistent.
But do you have another comment on that?
You have another one, don't you?
I did have just a couple more things because we turned to Marjorie Taylor Greene, and she puts it together pretty well.
If you can put that next clip on really quick, she says she makes a point.
Joe Biden took classified documents from the White House when he was vice president.
The VP does not have the power to declassify only the president.
Joe Biden stole classified documents.
This is a very serious crime.
Department of Justice and the National Archives cannot sweep this under the rug and persecute Trump for it.
That's a good point.
It's a very, very good point.
But I think, Dr. Paul, that Ed Snowden, as we close out this first story for our show today, I think he makes the best point if we can put the next one up.
As usual, Ed Snowden has a very important point to make.
He said, yes, Trump and Biden and Hillary all mishandled classified documents.
You could argue who did it worse, or you can question if we really need a system that crushes ordinary workers who fall foul of it while excusing the same crimes if done by the elites.
And he certainly is in a position to know that.
You know, the point I want to make isn't exactly a classified, but it should have been a classified.
That is how the briefcase thing has been handled because it had to do with Biden's son.
It had to do with Biden.
I was very much involved.
But was it ever investigated?
I'm still, maybe the new Congress is going to do that.
Anyway, the double standard is around to be there.
I think it's the nature of many politicians.
And it's such a delight when you meet a few.
I don't know.
We have six or eight now in the Congress, don't we?
So we're moving along.
But one thing that sometimes I felt a little lonely, but I also felt empowered, if I can use that term, in that even one person saying something sometimes can be more amazingly beneficial than if you had 100 people saying it, because you get written off.
Even if you're the majority, you can get written off easy.
And I've always worked with on the benefit that if you don't play this game of double standards and lying, that the American people can sort it out.
They can sort it out and tell when there are political gamesmanship going on and they're just lying through their teeth.
Yeah.
Well, our second story, Dr. Paul, if we can put that second one up, this is something that is a long time coming, and it may not come as much of a surprise, but the Pentagon has officially overturned the military vaccine mandate, which they, of course, had in place since late 2021.
Basically, every military, member of the U.S. military, and I believe contractors were forced to take the COVID vaccine or to be fired.
They did not grant exemptions.
There were lawsuits that came in where they didn't even consider the exemptions, religious exemptions and other exemptions.
And if you look at this next clip after that, this is from that same article which is in the Daily Caller talking about how many people were affected.
However, after more than a year of legal challenges to the mandate and at least 8,400 discharges for refusing the vaccine, Congress instructed Austin to reverse course in the new NDAA for 2023.
You know, this is, in a way, too little, too late.
It's good, and it is very basically good.
But it wasn't a complete thing that exonerated everybody that got their exemption.
But Thomas D. Lorenzo, a friend, has written about this.
I think he makes a very good point.
And it reminds me of what happens at the end of a war.
You know, the war is over.
It's been declared.
It was going to be declared 10 hours later or an hour later.
And unfortunately, a military personnel gets killed.
And I think that is so tragic, especially when this war was illegal and unconstitutional at the last minute.
So here it is.
And in a way, DeLorenzo makes this point.
He says, 21-year-old Air Force Academy football player Hunter Brown collapsed and died apparently from a heart failure while walking to class on Tuesday.
He goes on.
And we know that he had the shots.
He had the vaccine.
And we don't know what he would have done.
Maybe he wasn't quite ready to get kicked out of the military.
But anyway, now today, with the information coming out, there's going to be interesting to see the statistics now on how many military personnel, because you can imagine how many people might think, well, this is the first time I'm going to have a paycheck.
I'm going to be in the military and rationalize going in.
But I would think that this is a good move, but it is awfully small and it's awfully late.
And to think that if it were done at the beginning, who knows what would have been the consequence of all the people we've read about.
I mean, it isn't like, oh, now since this epidemic has existed, there's been 10 or 15 of these, and we should check into it.
I think that the statistics now show that there are thousands.
And, you know, tens of thousands in the military that took a shot that was unnecessary.
We know now that it was unnecessary.
We know actual science now that people have been able to speak out a bit that these are for the, by and large, young people that are in the military.
They're generally in good shape.
Our standards haven't slipped that much.
They're not recruiting me.
They're in generally very good physical shape.
Their risk of dying from COVID was virtually zero, yet they forced them to take an experimental shot.
And you say, well, why did they do that?
They said, well, we might suffer a readiness problem if these people start getting sick.
No.
The fact is they were used as political pawns by the administration.
The administration wanted to force people that it had control over to take these shots because they wanted to force other people that they don't have direct control over to take the shots as well.
So talk about respect the military.
No, they disrespect the military.
They harm the military.
They hurt these people.
They treat them like pawns, all for political reasons.
And I think that's actually disgusting and awful.
But the thing is that we would say is too little, too late.
Yes, because we have a real problem in the military, Dr. Paul.
And I'm just going to go through a couple of headlines I just dug up in a very cursory search.
This is from Bloomberg late last year.
U.S. military faces biggest recruiting hurdles in 50 years.
Do the next one.
This is from Fox.
U.S. Army falls 25% short of recruiting goals.
Nobody wants to join the military anymore.
And look at the next one.
This is from the Military Times.
You wonder why is the military too woke to recruit?
Nobody wants to join the military.
Partly the vax mandate, partially the wokeness.
And in the meanwhile, nobody's joining the military.
They've kicked out thousands of people from the military.
Putting It on the Table 00:08:47
And what else are they doing?
Let's look at the next one.
This is from the Wall Street Journal.
The Ukraine war is depleting U.S. ammunition stockpiles, sparking Pentagon concern.
So we kick out a bunch of people from the military.
We can't recruit anyone into the military.
And we've given away all our weapons.
So we're not big military hawks, but we actually do need some defense.
We spend a ton of money, but the actual things that defend us, they're gone.
Yeah, just emphasize some defense.
But all this stuff that we're talking about is getting ready to fight an unnecessary, illegal, unconstitutional, dangerous war.
And yet they're doing all this.
And we mentioned yesterday, and we've mentioned it many times, there's profit motives in all this.
Pfizer and social media and what they have gone and gone through.
That even compounds all of this.
The whole policy was based on a lie.
But then there was a monetary incentive, too.
And it wasn't like, oh, they made a couple extra million.
Oh, you mean they could have made a billion?
Yeah, they could have made many billions.
And it's part of the terrible situation, how much power that the military industrial complex, which includes the pharmaceutical industry, how much money is involved.
So in some ways, I have this mixed feeling about the bankruptcy that's coming and we're in the middle of.
The bankruptcy, you know, if we know what to do about it, is going to be a blessing.
But unfortunately, there's going to be even more innocent people.
You know, everybody who has gone through this, they don't have, you know, and are suffering from the inflation and all these things.
You can't expect that they would have known exactly what was going on.
They're thrown into this mesh where they are made pawns by the politicians and they say, oh, you'll take care of my medical care.
Okay, we need government medicine, that sort of thing.
So that to me is so sad.
And that's hope.
And I think when something happens that it looks bad and very detrimental, and the bankruptcy is going to be very bad, and the fiat money is going to have a struggle to survive, that should be just an incentive for us to put it out on the table.
And the things that most Austrian economists and free-loving people have put it out there.
Matter of fact, there was a time in our life that they actually had a revolution and wrote a constitution and putting that in.
And maybe that spirit needs to be realized.
Well, the last thing we want to talk about today, Dr. Paul, is something that it may sound minor, but it's just such an irritant.
And it just says so much about why the government is the enemy, is evil.
And let's put this next clip on because they're going to go after something that's near and dear to many of our hearts.
Nationwide ban on gas-burning stoves under consideration after new study claims appliances emit harmful pollution linked to childhood asthma.
So they want to ban a stove that I think 30 or 60 percent of Americans use on a regular basis using natural gas to cook, which is the best way to cook, by the way.
I don't care what anyone says.
But you know, when I was reading this article, I thought of you immediately because what is this really sparked by?
What really is driving this?
Let's put this next one up.
This is from the Blaze article.
And you'll appreciate this, Dr. Paul.
According to the EPA and the World Health Organization, gas-burning stoves emit unsafe levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, da-da-da-da-da.
So basically, this is the creeping globalism of these organizations like the World Health Organization.
I know you and Chris talk about Schwab a lot in his World Economic Forum.
These are these unelected, global, busy bodies that basically they just want to take everything enjoyable and fun out of life on ridiculous grounds.
So I don't know how you feel, Dr. Paul.
I think you got a gas-burning stove, don't you?
Yes, I do.
And I noticed the difference that, yeah, and you know all about cooking, but I know when I get near a skillet or something, wow, boy, that gets, you don't need to use very much gas electricity.
You know, I always never thought about it, but it bit you amount of energy we use in a slower fire that never gets its hook.
Am I correct in saying the gas fire is much hotter and it's easier to cook and do your food?
So it's a shame.
But you know, there was a statement about this that really tells you the big principle.
And there was a Richard Trunk who is a member of CPSC.
He said, this whole issue is this is a hidden hazard.
Any option is on the table, you know, because if gas is on the table, what is it?
What 35% of the people in this country totally depend on it?
And, you know, gasoline is on the table, you know, the whole mess.
Any option is on the table, he says.
Products that can't be made safe can be banned.
I didn't see that in the Constitution.
But there is no such thing as perfect safety.
You know, all kinds of things can happen.
But once you grant that authority, you've turned over just about everything because if you want to have medical safety and work safety, it's on and on.
What if you want to have safety?
Now, this might be something that they'll try, that we have to keep people safe because we have to control language and make sure they don't hear anything that's controversial.
And because how could we fight COVID if we didn't have the authority to keep the people safe?
It is a joke.
And it just took me over the years.
I always understood this.
But the more I think about it, the more important it is.
And it's a harder argument to make that they say, well, these regulations are going to make you safe.
What if you didn't have the government to tell you to put your seatbelt on?
Well, maybe most of them would have put them on anyway.
You know, this sort of thing.
It's always assumed that if the government doesn't do it, the people are too stupid.
And so that ingrains that into the system.
So that opens the door for the government to do anything they want.
Yeah, absolutely.
We'll put on this next clip.
This is the last clip that we have on this same thing.
And I just put this up because Adam Dick, who writes, who's with us at RPI, wrote a great little piece called The U.S. Government versus Home, Sweet Home.
And this is where it first came to my attention, this banning.
And he makes a very good point that they start out by cracking down on toilets, how much water you can use to flush.
Thanks a lot.
Then they crack down on incandescent light bulbs, which are the only kinds of light bulbs that I can stand.
In fact, I have to go on the black market to get them.
Probably harder to find than narcotics around here.
And now they're going to go after the gas stoves.
And he makes a great point.
Government just wants us to be miserable.
That's all they care about.
So anyway, I'll just close, Dr. Paul, by thanking our viewers again for coming back to the show after our short winter break.
If you notice that Rumble has changed its interface, so please hit like.
We're getting a few downloads, unlikes, which is kind of fun because YouTube took away those, a couple of those.
But so counteract that with some likes, please subscribe.
We picked up a couple thousand subscribers since we returned from the break.
We'd like to pump that up.
So go ahead and please subscribe.
Please comment.
Please share the show with your friends.
Please go to RonPaulInstitute.org and subscribe for free updates there.
Of course, as you know, we do not share your name or information with anyone.
So please do those things if you can.
We appreciate it.
It doesn't cost you anything and it helps us out a lot.
And thanks again for watching the show.
Dr. Paul.
Very, very good.
And in the last couple days, we've talked about, and I have talked about it specifically, that the cuts in the military that they talked about, you know, in order to get that bill passed, you know, to and get McCarthy in as speaker, that there was talk of cutting military across the board.
I think it was $75 billion chicken feed.
But anyway, it was in there, and I was being negative.
And I said, you know, I'll believe it when I see it.
You know, they sometimes they say these things.
And I said, maybe they'll put it in and take it out later on.
But it was the next day, there was a bipartisan coalition getting together and saying, you know, talking about how they were going to get this back in.
Emergency Fund Controversy 00:01:56
And now I read a little statement by somebody that was talking about this.
He says, the last time the formal Defense Department budget was capped, and that's what they're talking about doing again, Congress got around the limitations by putting billions of dollars into an overseas contingency operation fund.
And I didn't read it, but at the discretion of the president, you know, it's again shifting it away from the people, away from the Congress, put it in a slush fund, and who owns it?
The military-industrial complex.
And that just tells you they have a way to get around it.
But the other way that I've seen happen over the years has been the use of supplemental funds, emergency funds.
You know, you run out, you budget some things and you know you're going to run out after 10 months rather than 12.
Oh, we have an emergency fund.
We have to pass a bill.
And they can always come up with an international emergency and to the point where it can be sold to the people, you know, that it's desperate.
And the people, you know, it's a tough thing to resist all the bombardment by the propagandists and the politicians.
But I hope it gets easier because we hear more and more that the statistics are showing that people have caught on to a large degree.
And I think the momentum, you know, is in the direction of the people are very leery, especially when it comes to, say, the money being spent on Ukraine.
That's a good sign.
But we still have a long way to go because we still have to worry about the overseas contingency operation fund because nobody knows about it.
And they'll just slip that in there and use it whenever necessary.
I do want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty REAP report.
Export Selection