All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
26:10
Biden's Desperate Search For Weapons For Ukraine

The Biden Administration has just announced that it must dig into weapons it had stored in Israel and South Korea to shovel into the black hole known as Ukraine. Meanwhile the US Secretary of Navy has said that the US Administration is soon going to have to decide whether to arm Ukraine or arm the US. Also today...Biden's lawyers are back in court trying to reinstate the airline mask mandate!

|

Time Text
Israel's Naval Support? 00:14:44
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Doing well.
Good, good, good.
Better than the national budget.
But not as good as Lockheed Martin.
No, they're doing okay.
But I saw maybe we're going to get a reprieve because the Republicans have gone to Biden and said, can't we work out a peaceful deal on the budget?
I bet they can't do it.
They can't even do it within one party because there's no money there.
And productivity is going down.
They haven't quite realized that the till is empty and they're going to be, it's going to be a big problem.
Anyway, we're going to talk about something where if they were interested in cutting back, it might be in the military-industrial complex, but then you would have to be treasonous to do that.
Cut military?
We've never done that.
We just have to look for new opportunities.
But it's always not wasted.
It's always an investment.
You notice that we have to, you know, all the domestic spending.
This is an investment.
This is an investment overseas to protect our empire, you know, and protect our marketplaces.
But the news is Pentagon forced to tap unreported ammo stockpile in Israel.
Do you think Israel is doing this to service us or what?
I thought they were pretty independent.
They're independent with our weapons and our money.
And why are we going in there and asking Israel to bail us out?
Because we're rich and powerful and we have the biggest army in the world.
We don't have any more bullets.
We've used up the bullets.
But we have to have to go support Ukraine.
We have to go after those Russians.
And we have to support NATO, United Nations, IMF, the whole work.
So it's very, very important that there is victory.
But, you know, Putin said, well, you've got to give us a little credit.
You guys crossed the, you crossed the red line, you know, a while back when all of a sudden you broke all your promises in the UN that you would stay away from our borders.
And we don't like foreigners with a lot of weapons.
We've had a little experience in that.
There have been a few countries do that.
So they have their argument to make.
But right now, the momentum in the world has been on the side of this one little country that is dictating.
Do they come over and send us a message and a thank you card?
Why don't you give me more?
We want more and more and more.
So we keep giving it to them.
Now we're running out of stuff.
In the military-industrial complex, they're willing and able and capable.
Can you imagine running out of bullets in a country as powerful as ours?
But anyway, it's not too surprising because governments are so inept.
But now there's going to be a discussion a little bit.
Why have we become dependent on stockpiles on Israel?
And is that the way to go?
And I quite frankly think that this is an avoidable circumstance if we had a different type of foreign policy.
Yeah, absolutely.
Let's put up this first clip.
Now, this is the New York Times writing about it.
The U.S. desperate for weapons and munitions to send to Ukraine.
The title here is Pentagon Sends U.S. Arms Stored in Israel to Ukraine.
When you read down, it's not just Israel, but South Korea.
So we had a big cache of weapons that we keep in Israel and we keep in South Korea just in case things get hot and we need to use them.
We're having to dip into that because there aren't any weapons left.
And it does kind of make you wonder because the Pentagon talks a lot, Dr. Paul, about how we need to fight two wars simultaneously.
We need to be able to fight China and Russia.
And here we are not able to even equip Ukraine.
to fight Russia.
So it does make you wonder quite a bit about that.
And there's a couple of things that are interesting.
Why are they running out of weapons?
We have the biggest military budget, we have bigger than the next seven countries combined, yet we don't have any weapons to defend ourselves with.
Look at this next clip.
Now, this is from the New York Times article.
And this shocked me.
I had to read it a few times, Dr. Paul.
The United States has so far sent or pledged to send Ukraine just over 1,005 millimeter shells.
A million shells we've sent them already.
A sizable portion of that, though less than half, has come from stockpiles in Israel and South Korea.
We've sent them a million shells.
Put the next one up, please.
And the Ukrainian army uses about 90,000 artillery rounds a month, about twice the rate they are being manufactured by the United States and European countries combined.
So they are literally, literally sucking us dry of the weapons that we're told are here to defend America.
It's gone.
I just wonder whether there'll be any factions in Israel or any other place, even in the United States, that might complain that this will come across by being anti-Israel.
Oh, you mean you're taking the weapons away from Israel?
They're second-class citizens?
Oh, but we have to, you know, isn't there a bit of irony about Israel being involved?
And then when you look at the history of Ukraine and what was going on in World War II, you know, now Israel has to come to the rescue of people who sympathize with their enemies back in World War II.
Well, those are American weapons there, you know, that we store there, that we leave there.
But Israel has been very careful.
They've said over and over, we're not going to send weapons to Ukraine.
We don't want to get on the bad side of Russia.
And I'm sure a lot of the stuff, they don't want to send sophisticated stuff because if it's captured, it can easily be reverse engineered.
And away things are going in Ukraine.
It could find its way back to Iran for reverse engineering.
But the fact that it's running through weapons like this to fight this proxy war, it is definitely a proxy war between the U.S. essentially and Russia.
The Ukrainians are doing the bleeding.
The Europeans are doing the freezing.
And the takedown of Russia is what it's supposed to be.
Now here's something else that's related because here we're depleting all of our weapons, depleting our ability to defend the U.S.
And here's the Secretary of the Navy.
This just a few days ago.
Put this next one on.
This is in the Daily Mail.
Navy Secretary says that U.S. Navy may need to choose between arming itself or Ukraine.
And I had to do a double take on that, Dr. Paul, and it got a little bit of attention because our own Navy Secretary is saying, you know what, we're going to have to decide whether we want to defend this country and have weapons for this country or whether we're just going to give it all to Ukraine.
It's pretty astonishing to think about.
You know, in this article that we were citing in Zero Hedge, they make a point that this stockpile in Israel hasn't been previously reported.
So most people haven't known about it.
And I would say that's probably the case with most of the congressmen.
There may be a couple that know about it, but I think that is typical.
Not only that, this is minor compared to what they do in contrast to what the Constitution says about going to war.
Going to war, it's just an executive order.
Been doing it since 1945.
And so the fact that there's a lot of weapons there in case we have to bomb the Liberal Daylights out of Russia, you know, this is proper, but nobody really knows about it.
But, you know, that's one thing about, you know, the Hawks are verbal about it, but there's so many others that I met in Congress that realized that they could step on it.
It was sort of like, we know this war on drugs is bad, and that sort of changed eventually because it wasn't working.
But in this case, they don't feel that strongly about it as the real hawks do, but they avoid it because there's a political downside for this.
I have to be careful.
I'll look like I'm weak on national defense, and that's going to hurt my reelection.
It might even hurt my donations from the military and complex.
So there's a lot of politics involved in that kind of stuff.
But practical policy, it's horrendous.
The fact that a naval officer says, oh, if you're going to do it, you better make a choice.
But, you know, we make choices all the time.
They just never admit it.
Every penny they spend, there's a choice.
And most of the time is everybody gets what they want and we'll print the money.
And the majority, obviously, Republicans or Democrats agree with that because that's what's happening.
You know, we argue that we shouldn't be involved in this war whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we did get involved in 2014 and also even 10 years earlier than that in 2004 when we helped the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.
That's our argument.
But it seems like there could be a good argument that even conservatives who may not agree with us when it comes to our overspending on the military, that even conservatives in Congress could make, which is how does this make any sense that we are not able to defend the U.S.?
We don't have any weapons left because we sent them all to a proxy war.
And the only way that they can get away with this, I think, Dr. Paul, is that they have to frame this just like they did with Saddam Hussein.
This is a war between good and evil.
This is not a border conflict, a border clash.
This is not the remnants of the breakup of the Soviet Union in delayed fashion.
This is a monumental clash between good and evil.
And if we lose this war, and actually the Prime Minister of Finland, who's, I won't say any more about her, but she said this at Davos this week.
If Russia wins, if we lose this war, it'll send a message that you can just invade other countries and benefit from it.
You know, like we haven't been doing that.
So they frame it in this massive monolithic good versus evil.
That's the only way they can justify it because otherwise some astute conservative would say, hey, wait, wait a minute, why are we depleting our entire resources and giving it to another country?
I've always made the argument that how does this end?
They don't listen to reason, because we're reasonable people and they're not paying much attention to it.
But it ends as it is already seeing signs of.
It ends because you run out of money.
That's what happened to the Soviet system.
We didn't convert them.
The leaders of the Soviet system actually just morphed into a more corporatist system.
I mean, they're not market, free market-oriented anyway.
But the big thing is that they don't talk as much about it.
They have all other reasons why we have to be there.
But the result is, if you've alluded to it, the result is there's antagonism.
But they don't see that as bad as long as it's contained and as long as it's in the orderly, that we can just order more weapons.
But here it is that we've, you know, it is.
The more I think about it, the more astounding it is.
How could we?
I mean, we have a safe haven here and we can do what we want.
And it is extravagance.
It's a malinvestment, wasted money.
Everything is politicized.
And, you know, when push comes to shove, maybe the American people will eventually wake up, half wake up, and say, yeah, we're going broke.
So let's spend what we have left on ourselves and something like that instead of looking at a bigger picture.
Well, here's to close this first section out.
Here's a quote from the Secretary of the Navy.
This is from Defense One.
The Secretary was asked to respond to comments made at the conference by Admiral Darryl Cowdell, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
Cowdell, the reporter, said, worried that, quote, the Navy might get to the point where it hasn't to make a decision whether it needs to arm itself or arm Ukraine.
And has the Navy gotten to that point yet?
And Del Toro, this is the Navy Secretary, replied to that saying, with regards to deliveries of weapon system for the fight in Ukraine, yeah, that's always a concern for us.
And we monitor it very, very closely.
I wouldn't say we're quite there yet, but if the conflict goes on for another six months, for another year, it certainly continues to stress the supply chain in ways that are challenging.
And again, you have to wonder, why are we doing this?
Why is it all in, everything in for this Ukraine war?
I suspect you have a pretty good opinion about exactly why.
Because we do talk about it a lot.
No, it is.
I wonder about things like that, motivation.
I keep thinking it's stupidity or just money.
It could be both.
They just go along with it.
And certainly the restraint that has been placed in the Constitution, that doesn't come up very often.
If you listen to the debates, significant political debates, there's really not much talk about that.
But the problems get worse.
And they do not seem because it seems like it fits into the category of the real rebels, the cultural Marxists, because whether it's economic chaos that they precipitate, which is hard for me to believe, why would they do this?
Well, maybe they're economic Marxists.
At the same time, when you do dumb things like this and we provoke different countries now, now they're seriously considering someday it's going to happen where somebody's going to come up with an alternative to the dollar.
Not tomorrow, the next day, but it's going to happen because all reserve currencies and the end.
And this one is starting to show weakening.
And that will be a really big deal when it comes to the prosperity and safety of this country.
Coming Vaccine Debate 00:10:22
And that is something that could be changed right now.
We could change the policy and start the recovery, but a few people would be hurt.
The military industrial complex, cut their profits?
What kind of nonsense is that?
We can't do that.
You just reminded me, actually, Adam Dick at the Ron Paul Institute just wrote a little piece that we put up, and I encourage everyone to go over there and look at it.
But he was comparing your 2006 speech on the House floor, the end of dollar hegemony, and he pointed out, and I'm sure you saw this on Zero Hedge today, about how the Saudis are talking about accepting alternative currencies, non-dollar currencies.
And it's a great piece because he contrasts what you said back then, your warnings then, and now they're coming true.
So I would encourage him.
They didn't listen?
They didn't.
They didn't listen.
But anyway, here's the next one.
Let's put on this next clip.
This is our second story.
We've been scratching our heads so much today, Dr. Paul, that we're going to, I don't know what's going to happen.
Our brains are going to leak out, but I'm scratching my head over this one.
This is from the Daily Mail.
Biden administration wants to bring back mask mandates onto flights.
Months after the president insisted the pandemic was over.
Let's do the next clip and I'm going to toss it back, Dr. Paul, because this is what we're talking about.
Joe Biden's administration is fighting to reinstate a federal mask mandate for air travel, even after the president declared in September their COVID-19 pandemic is over, and it's been nearly a year since domestic airline passengers have been required to mask up on flights.
The Justice Department argued the case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday, which is yesterday, on behalf of the CDC.
Can't believe that.
You know, that's part of the philosophy that the government's role and most important thing they do is make us safe.
And that means from cradle to grave and what we eat, drink, how we exercise, who we visit with, the whole work.
And this is what they want to do.
They're advertising safety.
That means that we have to protect you on the highways and we have to make sure that you're safe from diseases and the whole works.
And even if it requires lying, you know, they might even lie to us about COVID and the danger of it, but it's always making the people safe.
Now, I didn't hear the word safe a whole lot on this incident, but that's what they're talking about.
Well, we're not doing it just for fun, and we apologize for the inconvenience, but we have to be safe because if the Russians don't come, the bugs are coming.
Bugs are coming.
We've got to protect you.
Just think.
Well, we have thought about it all the time.
Just think of how much of the opposite effect it has had.
Has all this nonsense of masks and lockdowns and vaccines and booster shots.
It's not only, it wasn't even neutral.
You know, it'd have been better if they just gave out placebos.
But no, we keep pounding away, and then we look at now the information is coming.
Now, I believe the stories now that are whispering about a cover-up on how many people get sick.
You know, the medical records are not reliable because of the way they're reporting on it.
But we knew that from the very beginning that the test for COVID was not reliable, and it was all based on making things look much worse than they were.
And that, of course, has led to this very big problem for us.
Well, here's another quote from the article, if we can put it up, because this puts it sort of in context, I think.
So even as they're sending their lawyers to fight for new mask mandates, the article says, the pandemic is over, Biden said during a 16-minutes interview in September.
We still have a problem with COVID.
We're still doing a lot of work on it.
They go on to say, well, walking through the Detroit Auto Show for his pre-taped CBS interview, Biden said, quote, if you notice, no one's wearing a mask.
Everyone seems to be in pretty good shape.
Despite this statement, others lauding an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, the president last week quietly extended the national emergency declaration through April.
So even though they're saying everything's fine now, no masks, you still have to have that state of emergency.
You know, that's the trouble.
Some politicians aren't careful.
Every once in a while, they blurt out the truth.
And they get themselves, oh, I'm not a hypocrite.
No, this.
They have to cover the bases because they've mixed up the bottom line for a couple companies.
This is just a little tidbit if you can do this next one, because I thought you might find this interesting if you haven't seen it, Dr. Paul.
This is from Fox News.
Omicron subvariant XBB15, possibly more likely to infect those who are vaccinated, officials say.
So this is just another example.
Everything they did was wrong.
Everything they said was a lie.
And it's more and more coming out about this.
Well, one thing that has been proven by the politicians, and that has to do with infections and different problems that we think we can take care of and make everybody safe and secure.
But a very, very important third person has now come down with COVID.
Oh, no.
And this is very important.
I mean, if he's not in good shape, how's he going to regulate money?
And that is the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Powell.
Oh, no.
He tests positive for COVID, and he has some symptoms.
Oh, no.
But this is the whole thing is all I would say is, boy, you know, they ought to keep an EKG around.
Keep measuring.
But that to me is so sad they get the attention.
And you'd think if they're smart enough to get to be the Federal Reserve Board chairman, they ought to be smart enough to read a little bit of science from doctors that know a lot more about it than the politicians.
That's not likely to be the case.
Yeah, I'm sure he's had plenty of shots, though.
I don't know.
I don't know how that's possible.
I guess maybe they don't work.
I don't know.
I'm going to close with this, Dr. Paul, because this is a related thing.
And this is a video, so you might want to grab those ear pieces.
But this is Fauci way back during AIDS.
And listen to how he argues about the danger of an AIDS vaccine.
This is really interesting.
That a vaccine against AIDS may be impossible to make and too dangerous to test.
If you take it and then a year goes by and everybody's fine, then you say, okay, that's good.
Now let's give it to 500 people.
And then a year goes by and everything's fine.
Say, well, now let's give it to thousands of people.
And then you find out that it takes 12 years for all hell to break loose.
And then what have you done?
That's fascinating because he says we've got to be careful about any kind of vaccine because we may give this vaccine out a year, two years, and everything is fine.
But 12 years down the road, all hell may break loose.
That's pretty amazing when you're finding out that it's all breaking loose in just one year.
It doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't know why the Fauci of that era seem to know a little bit more about science than the Fauci of this era.
Yeah, I'm done.
That's my last thing.
I'm going to have a brief mention, which is political, and I'm not into politics at all.
You like political polling, so you might catch a tidbit here.
This one is just out recently.
Trump trounces DeSantis in potential GOP primary matchup.
A new poll shows.
Technically, I would say this probably doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, but maybe it is counteracting at least the pretense of the establishment, which is, you know, to bury Trump.
He's gone.
He's nothing.
But all of a sudden, it comes along here, and this is plausibly, you know, a bit of information that might make it legitimate for Trump to say, hey, not so bad, not so bad.
He was 17 points ahead.
But that same poll showed that Cheney, Congresswoman, ex-Congresswoman Cheney, had 3%, I say.
So she's recording.
But anyway, I think that is a little bit different.
And because one thing is, people have shorter memories.
I do believe that his more quiet attitude in the past six months or so, when all that stuff was going on with the speaker, maybe he's being guided with a little bit different approach.
So that would be all right because we want a contest because we don't want to think that the Republicans can't have somebody that can beat Biden.
You know, that's pretty bad.
So I want to thank everybody for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
We appreciate your support very much.
And I believe that things are going well in many ways that the country survived.
But that's not doing really well because we have a bad economic system.
We're broke.
They're going to talk about balancing the budget next week.
We've had the Republican leaders approaching Democratically, let's work together on the budget.
Well, if you think that if they did that, it might have an economic effect.
But don't change your economic opinion because in one year you're going to have the budget balance.
But they're not even pretending that.
You know, no more five-year plans.
The 10-year plan is we're going to balance the budget in 10 years.
Well, who knows what it will be like in 10 years?
And that is the reason why we should pay much more attention basically to our guidelines for our policies, which would be our Constitution.
Just think there wouldn't be a Federal Reserve System, there wouldn't be an IRS, there would be sound money.
The whole works, and we wouldn't be able to start a war with an executive order.
10-Year Budget Balance 00:00:47
It'd be so different.
And yet people along, and now they have it pretty well established, but their position is weakening.
That if you take those positions, you're somehow treasonous, that you hate your country and you hate your military because you won't pursue the empire.
Well, I'll tell you what, empires have one ending, they end.
And ours is weakening.
And one of these days we'll find out what it's like when you're living in a situation where the empire has ended.
Everybody will have to pay something for that.
We're already in the business of paying back the borrowing.
And the way you measure that is whether or not your prices have gone up.
And they are.
And that's a sign of bankruptcy.
Export Selection