Zelensky: 'Thanks For The Tanks...Now GIMME Missiles And F-16s!
Less than a day after the US and Germany agreed to give heavy tanks, Ukraine's president Zelensky again upped the stakes, demanding F-16s and long-range missiles that can strike deep inside Russia. US officials remain confident that Russia will not respond to the steady escalation. What if they're wrong? Also today: China goes to Africa with briefcases instead of bombs. Finally...another Project Veritas sting shows the truth about Pfizer.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Doing well.
Good, good.
Just trying to figure out where we're going to get all this money.
You know, the Ukrainians still want more stuff.
Gimme, gimme, gimme.
And they got a bunch of tanks, and everybody's cooperating, doing what we tell them to do.
And sometimes we change our mind, and sometimes we just keep doing the same old thing over and over again.
But, you know, I was reading that one of the things is, you know, every week there's a new project.
We have to do this, this, and this.
And I didn't know whether it was supplies that was problem.
But they claim it's deliberate.
They didn't want to, you know, at the very beginning, you know, when we decide the Russians are invading the Russians, they send everything necessary because we are really at war, you know.
No, they said, we have to dribble it in.
We don't want to antagonize the Russians.
Like the Russians hadn't warned us about a red line and that they were crossing the red line.
And yet they continue to do it.
But they agitated.
It was on again, off again, arguments all over the place, even within our own country.
Is it a good idea to send over tanks and try to refresh their memories about how you have tank wars, go back to World War I and World War II.
But anyway, they got their tanks, but did they send us a thank you note?
They didn't even do that.
They knocked on our door again, the American people.
All right, you American people, you're richer than the devil, and therefore we want more money.
We want you to pay for airplanes.
We want airplanes.
We have to win this war for, you know, the West, for NATO.
We have to win this war now, but we can't do it if you're not going to send us enough weapons.
And, of course, the argument goes on, but it seems almost like the decision has been made.
You know, they say that there's a major debate going on whether we should send airplanes.
The countries aren't all agreeing and whatnot.
But, you know, I see that the House of Representatives in July appropriated $100 billion to train the Ukrainians to fly American airplanes as if this is all of a sudden an immediate decision-making process and we're going to go through it and measure all the pros and cons of giving them airplanes.
And I think it's been said that their runways aren't exactly the right length.
So we'll have to pay to lengthen their runways.
It's a monstrous of an idea because the whole thing is of no value to the world.
It's no value to our safety and our security.
And there's no value to the American taxpayers.
But there's no hesitation, slight hesitation, but no expectation that even the Republicans will have a significant cut in the money that goes into the military-industrial complex.
They'll pay a little bit of lip service to it, but it's not going to happen.
The military-industrial complex will not be starved, and the weapons will go.
And without seriously studying the total pros and cons of whether the planes will get to the Ukraine, my prediction is they'll get the planes.
Well, this is really interesting, you know, and it's one, it's what geostrategic analyst Alexander Mercurius calls the escalation escalator, and that's what it is.
And there's no way off once you get on it.
So, this is what we're on now.
You know, just a while ago when the war started, we've got to give them javelins.
If we just give them the javelins, they're going to win this war.
Just give us the javelins and we'll win.
Well, that came and went, and it didn't change the course of the war.
Then it was, we need high Mars.
Just give us these High Mars, these multiple rocket launchers, and we're going to win the war.
Well, they got those, and it didn't win the war.
And so, then it was, just give us these heavy tanks, just give us these heavy tanks.
Said, no, no, no, no, that's a non-starter.
And then all of a sudden, yes, okay, you can have these.
And as you say, without skipping a beat, literally hours after he was told that he's going to get the heavy tanks, he said, Okay, that's fine.
But I need F-16s and I need missiles that can strike deep inside of Russia.
And so, the premise that the U.S. and NATO have given for this whole thing is that Ukraine can't lose.
If Ukraine loses, we lose.
So, we have to do everything we can to make sure they win.
And so, Ukraine just can simply say, Well, if you don't give those, we're going to lose.
We have to have them, we're going to win.
We have to win.
I mean, we'll get them, we'll win.
So, it's an escalator that leads to no good for sure.
And as you say, and we can actually put up that first quote because this is what it's all about.
Now, it got its tanks, now it wants jet fighters.
The whole thing is premised on the idea, the assertion given by the various Washington think tankers and State Departmenters, the assumption that Russia won't react.
I think that's a pretty dangerous assumption to make.
Boy, it is, and that's how many, many a war has expanded.
And it has been said that both sides usually miss out on their interpretation.
The two sides that are challenging each other, and one thinks that it's going to be a duck suit, but the other things that they will not react, and they'll both be wrong, and the war start.
But it's this anticipation.
I guess it's sort of like human action.
You cannot predict the human action, especially when there's a lot of money and power and so-called prestige involved.
And yet, I think what we tend to do is try to overcome those preemptive ideas and saying, you know, why don't you think this through and think about it, you know, one step further rather than looking about that far in front of your nose and decide, you know, what really are they after?
What is really causing this?
Is it really security for Ukraine?
Is it really security for the United States?
Is it World War III?
You know, just trying to figure this out makes a big difference.
And we have an occasional, you know, help from even in the United States, even in the military, that we do have some military people that are reasonable and can think this through.
And right now, there's been a little bit of noise coming from the Pentagon and say, why are we doing all this?
So that has happened before.
It's just that if you concentrate on the deep state, the people who really pull the strings, sometimes they're the most powerful.
And right now, they're on the side of more war, more weapons.
More war.
Well, here's a couple of quotes from the Politico article.
If we could put this next one up, this basically just demonstrates what we've said, but it's worth reading.
Washington has told Kiev that supplying aircraft is a no-go for the moment.
This European diplomat quoted above has added.
But added, quote, there's a red line there.
But last summer we had a red line on high Mars, and that moved.
Then it was Battle Tanks, and that's moving.
So essentially, he's describing the escalation escalator, although he thinks it's a good idea.
Now here's Mars article quoting a senior advisor to the Ukrainian defense minister.
And here's what he says.
This gives you a view into how they're thinking.
Quote, they didn't want to give us heavy artillery, then they did.
They didn't want to give us the Heimar systems, then they did.
They didn't want to give us tanks.
Now they're giving us tanks.
Apart from nuclear weapons, there is nothing left that we will not get.
And this is Yuri Sack, who is an advisor to the defense minister quoted in Reuters.
And you go back to the Dutch foreign minister.
If you go to the next one, this is going back to the politico piece.
He seems to agree with Yuri Bak.
He says, Dutch Foreign Minister Woopke Kochstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his cabinet would look at supplying F-16 fighter jets if Kiev requests them.
Quote, we're open-minded.
There are no taboos, he said.
And the other thing that I didn't mention, Dr. Paul, or I didn't have a clip for, is that Lockheed Martin chimed in right away and says, we're ready to make those F-16s.
Just give us the word.
We're ready to do it.
So there you have this whole thing is set in motion in a very dangerous way.
We talk about the cost of this.
It is a big deal, the cost, because eventually this nonsense will quit when we're not able to keep this warmongering going.
But in the meantime, and this is what finally ended the Vietnam War, were the body bags and the people killed.
The American soldier is not being killed, but there's a group of people who are being killed.
Ukrainians and a lot of Russians are being killed.
And I think that's just a total cost and a waste when you really know what has been accomplished on this.
And they say, oh, we're bringing peace to the world and all that nonsense.
And they think the whole thing is more tanks and more airplanes.
That is our problem.
And there's no cost.
How many more thousands?
What is it?
Up to 100,000?
Yeah.
Soldiers killed?
I mean, this just blows my mind to think about the huge losses there.
But it seems like that gets pushed down on the ladder of value.
That's the last thing.
And they don't hardly mention it, you know, but they mention, well, we have to have these weapons, the various things that you were just mentioning.
Oh, yeah, we need this, we need this, and there's going to be victory, and the people will get gun-ho over this, and there's no signs of any serious peace talks.
You know, that is not happening.
And that means the war is going to get worse.
Yeah.
Well, you know, we talked about it the other day, that this is not a war about peace and democracy.
Soros let it out, the cat out of the bag, what, 15, 25 years ago when he said, we don't care if these people from Eastern Europe die.
It doesn't matter because they're going to make it sure that the U.S. will keep its interventionist foreign policy.
So people like Soros, they don't care about these.
But the real question about the F-16s, and it's similar to when we talked about the tanks yesterday, when Colonel McGregor said, these are the worst tanks for what they're trying to do.
The question about the F-16s are two questions.
Where are they going to take off and land from?
And who's going to pilot them?
You don't just, again, just like the tanks, you don't just walk into an F-16 and turn on the engine and start dropping bombs.
A, it's going to take a long time to train these people if they ever do.
And where will they take off from?
Because Russia can control every airbase in Ukraine.
Can easily take these out anywhere in the country.
They've already demonstrated they have hypersonic missiles for which there is no defense known in the world right now.
So where are they going to take off from?
Are you going to have Americans or Poles taking off from Polish territory and F-16s dropping bombs on Russians in eastern Ukraine or even in Russia proper?
That's the next step.
And that's what's going to happen because they can't take off from Ukraine.
They're useless if they can't take off.
And so that's going to be the next escalation.
And that, I predict, will be the last escalation.
You know, and the other thing that happens in situations like this is that the weapons are called for, they get them, they don't accomplish the mission.
And so often the weapons notoriously end up in the hands of somebody they did, not our friends.
The Taliban, yeah.
Billions of dollars.
This will happen.
But it's almost too early to think that because it looks like they've narrowed it down to the Ukrainians, Ukrainian soldiers, Zelensky, and what the Russians are doing.
Maybe there'll be a shift in things.
The shift in leadership in Russia probably is not going to happen.
But who knows where Ukraine's going to be because, you know, Europe is not exactly the richest group of countries in the world, nor are we the richest country anymore either.
There may be a point where things will have to, you know, the support for Ukraine might has to change, and maybe there'll be some other force.
What if, for instance, what if China got involved?
They've been running a pretty good show there and making a few bucks doing it.
But I'm not predicting or worrying about that.
But I'm just thinking that somebody else might get involved.
And even this sending them over, I mean, they don't have train pilots.
They don't have runways that run long enough.
They probably don't know exactly how these planes are going to win the war.
They haven't even run up their tanks yet.
They don't even have them yet.
But it's on again.
You get a group of weapons.
We want more and more and more.
And that's supposed to be a solution to the problem.
And you know what it's going to be?
They're going to say, thanks for the planes.
We need to use them, but we need a no-fly zone in western Ukraine because otherwise we can't take off.
And you're going to lose these wonderful planes you gave us.
That's going to be the next push.
I really do think so.
I want to, if we can skip ahead to the next clip, actually, skip ahead one clip to the other.
Occasionally people will send me things that I find very interesting.
And a gentleman called Brad Pierce sent me an article earlier today, and I have not read the whole article, but I did read a very, very clever little paragraph, Dr. Paul.
The article is called Just Like Herding Leopards.
He's given us permission to reprint.
I do have to read the whole thing before I reprint.
But go ahead and go to the next one because I think this is very, very clever in a very good way of putting it.
He said, we need to start with some background on what is currently going on in Ukraine.
As ever, this is what I like to call Schrödinger's war effort, in that we're meant to believe that Ukraine is simultaneously, easily winning, but also desperately needs gear because it's on the brink of catastrophic collapse.
China's Business Vessels00:09:21
Similarly, Russia is simultaneously, comically weak and incompetent, and able to conquer Europe if they're not stopped in Ukraine.
And that's a very, very good point because they say it with a straight face.
On the one hand, Ukraine's easily winning.
On the other hand, give them tanks, they're losing.
On the one hand, Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.
And on the other hand, they're about ready to enter Germany if we don't stop them here.
So I think that's in a nutshell.
That's a really great little close there.
Historically, these kind of conditions do end.
And many times they end with the bankruptcy that you just can't afford the war.
And sometimes, you know, the two sides just run out of steam.
And they just can't find more people to get engaged.
And they do run out of money.
And then there'll be maybe more lawlessness, you know, on top of the type of lawlessness they already have.
So this is a mess that will, it is self-limited, but common sense will not rule out, you know, be the tool that they're going to use.
They're not going to get together here in the next week.
What would you think of it?
Next week, oh, well, they're finally going to have peace talks.
You know, I don't think they're ready for serious peace talks.
So it'll come.
But it's such a tragedy that all the killing and spending and all the mess that will continue for a while longer because it's still the innocent foot soldier, the people becoming victimized, the people who are making all the money and the deep state and the politicians, the people with power, it's not likely that they'll be paying the bills.
Yeah.
You know, it's interesting.
I remember our show yesterday, we talked about the foreign minister of Germany saying we're at war with Russia.
That really made a huge splash.
And I just saw it before the show started, and we use it as our title.
But, you know, think about the historical implications.
This woman must be completely daft because the idea of a German official declaring war on Russia, you know, I mean, it's just, it's unbelievable.
I guess we should move on because this is another thing about foreign policy.
And I think we're both kind of interested in it just for the contrast.
Let's turn this next one over if we can.
This is something that we notice on Zero Heads.
They got it from Statista.
Go back.
Yeah, there we go.
China's African trade takeover.
And it's really interesting to see in 20 years how China has gotten involved in Africa.
Let's look at that next one.
This is a chart that's really, really interesting because it shows in the year 2000, the blue here, which is most of Northwest Africa, is the top country for imports in African countries was France.
And China was just a little tiny bit in East Africa.
And now if you look 20 years later, with the exception of South Africa continuing to have influence in southern Africa, you see a near total takeover in trade from China.
And it's just a very interesting development, Dr. Paul, how deeply.
And I think we're both shocked by the map because how deeply China is involved.
Yeah, it is.
And it's, I believe, predictable because of the way things are run.
But the prediction, though, on what this is going to cause with the politician and a lot of Americans and the Republican Party is this angers them to no end.
Look at these Chinese.
They're taking over the world.
But the thing of it is, they do have their goals, and they're not pro-American.
They're not pro-libertarian.
But what they're doing, I think there's a lot of evidence here that they're practicing old-fashioned free trade or capitalism because they sell us a lot of stuff.
And the whole worldwide monetary system is all messed up because we have the reserve currency.
We can print whatever we want.
Then we have excessive amounts of money.
And the American people and the business people can spend their money where they want.
Guess what?
They're more likely, I don't think everything that's bought in this country is a look and say, oh, Trump, I'm not buying it.
They look at it and say, good deal.
I'm going to do it.
And I think the businessman does it.
We have business people over there.
I thought it was a very positive move when we started to talk about dealing with China and trading with China.
But right now, though, China ends up making the money.
They have the money and the investments they put into buying up businesses and the metals and whatever they can get.
And everything has increased with China.
Ours, they didn't even make the call.
They didn't even put the United States up there with the amount of trade.
But I think it's compounding the problem.
If the American people say, you know, it's China's fault and what do we send them?
We send them war vessels to show them how tough we are.
And why?
Go right up and down the straits and right near them on the international line and just antagonize them.
And we spend it.
Just think of all the money and effort we do that compared to, you know, that'd be like China forgetting about Africa and arguing the case why they can put as many war vessels in the Gulf of Mexico as they want because international law allows us in international water.
Just seeing if we can antagonize the Americans to sink one of their vessels for some reason.
So it's part of foreign policy and it's absolutely opposite of the advice the founders gave us that we should have trade.
You trade with people, you're less likely to fight with people.
And here we are.
We're not trading with them.
Somebody else is and we're looking for a fight.
And it's all done in the name of patriotism.
So today I will be accused of, you know what?
Oh, you're not very American defending American freedom so they wouldn't understand.
But that's a powerful tool.
I mean, the same arguments go to a large degree about how we deal with Russia at the moment.
Yeah, absolutely.
Some people are still dealing with the Soviet system.
Yeah, in their minds, yeah, absolutely.
And one of the things in this article, just a little example of the growth of the Chinese influence in Africa, the value of Chinese exports to African countries jumped from 5 billion U.S. dollars to $110 billion in those two decades, in those 20 years.
$5 billion to $110 billion in exports.
And also imports from Africa, of course, are fueling China.
But what does the U.S. do?
Now, what is the U.S. relationship?
And you indicated it before, but let's look at, here's just an example from anti-war.com today.
China comes bringing suitcases and briefcases of money and contracts for trade deals.
And here's what the U.S. does.
This is just news from yesterday on antiwar.com.
AFRICOM says two al-Shabaab fighters killed in Somalia airstrike.
This is what we do.
We bomb and bomb and bomb.
We strike in Somalia.
We strike everywhere.
So it's the U.S. military that does our talking in Africa.
And in China, it's the, yeah, of course, it's state-directed business.
We're not stupid.
We don't think it's a free market.
But at least they're going there doing business rather than bombing.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
You know, this was bilateral type benefits because there was a tremendous increase.
There's $14 billion worth of products that the Chinese are buying.
Usually trade is mutual.
Eventually it always works out because if a person has the money and they sold us something in China, they don't put it in a shoebox.
Matter of fact, the other benefit we get from it for years, and we still get it to a degree, but this is what's changing, is they do this as an unbalance of trade and we sell them, we buy their stuff, they end up money, they buy our debt.
We print the money and go over it, then they end up buying it.
So they finance our system and both sides can get pretty unhappy.
But it's right in this example is the people who are willing to trade and not look for an immediate war are the ones that are benefiting.
China is benefiting, but that doesn't mean that, oh, those dirty old communists.
Matter of fact, they're leading and picking up a few lessons from free markets where you have international trade.
Pfizer's Government-Backed Cash Cow00:09:00
And we're not interested in that.
Doesn't seem to be.
Well, let's move on to the last one.
And this is a big story.
And I really, we have to tip our hat to Project Veritas because they, I mean, I was watching this undercover Sting and I was, my palms were getting sweaty.
I couldn't imagine being these guys who are pretending just to be friends and, hey, let's talk about the Pfizer, whatever.
I mean, I don't have it in me.
I guess I wouldn't make a good spy.
But put this next one on.
They had a massive, massive expose.
And Zero Hedge, among others, wrote about it.
Directed Evolution.
Pfizer's R ⁇ D executive says COVID-19 created in Wuhan is a cash cow for the company.
And here he is Jordan Tristan Walker.
He's the director of research and development for Pfizer.
Caught on tape undercover talking about a number of absolutely wild, wild things, including, and let's put this next one on to kick it off, Dr. Paul, one of the things we are exploring is why don't we just mutate the COVID virus ourselves?
Then we could preemptively develop new vaccines, right?
You're going to have to go through.
There's a risk, you know, as you can imagine, he says, et cetera, et cetera.
So basically, he's saying, we're going to mutate it ourselves so we can go ahead and get ahead of it with.
Yeah, he said, we have to be careful.
We wouldn't ever want to have something happen like with COVID.
And it's done deliberately.
They want to mutate.
And they said, why wait until nature does it and then develop and test a vaccine?
What we do is we make the virus and make it available, but we can already start on the vaccine.
It is evil, pure evil of what they're doing.
And I have zero, and it's minus many, many fold for any respect at all for people like that.
This is just horrible.
And they're killing people.
This is killing people.
But it is amazing how these journalists get in.
I don't know how they do it, but I wish them well.
They get in and get these stories.
But, you know, how can we not defeat, and if we had people on our side being a little more aggressive, how can we not be able to defeat people who are so stupid as to reveal this?
And I don't think they're leaking this out.
They're bragging.
What they're doing is bragging.
We have a scientific way of doing this and preempting it.
We can prepare.
We can prepare for diseases that we're going to create.
This is something out of a science fiction movie, isn't it?
Yeah, it's horrible.
Well, I have a couple of quotes from this is a transcript of what was caught on tape.
If we can put this next one up, because here's a couple of things I think that are very important.
Now, Walker is the advisor executive.
He says, part of what the Pfizer scientists want to do to some extent is to figure out there are these new strains and variants that pop up.
So just trying to catch them before they pop up and we can develop a vaccine for a new variant.
So that's what they like.
It's controlled in the lab, et cetera.
And so the journalist says, oh, that's great.
That's wonderful.
Just control nature even before nature happens.
And the Pfizer guy says, yeah, if it works.
And the journalist says, what do you mean if it works?
Now, here's a part that's interesting.
Because some of the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for.
like with Delta and Omicron and things like that.
Who knows?
Either way, it's going to be a cash cow.
COVID is going to be a cash cow for us for a while going forward, like obviously.
But they have to have cooperation and maybe they just do it by good PR.
They have to have cooperation with the politicians who go along with it and exempt them from any type of rules like the FDA used to test a few of these things.
This was purposely not tested, but that was a bipartisan deal.
Rush it, rush it, rush this through, get it in.
We need it.
We need to save lives.
And of course, look at what has happened.
But in the interview, one person said, he says, don't tell anyone.
This is the Pfizer person.
There is a risk.
No kidding.
Have to be very make sure that this virus you mutate doesn't create some way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They wouldn't worry about that.
They just get another cash cow out there, milk a cow.
But what they're thinking is, oh, that's all helpful.
You have to take care of that.
But it all comes out of something else.
And that's why people pay the bills, contributed it, prices go up, the economy gets weaker, and all these things that happen.
So there is an economic cost as well as a political cost and a life cost.
This is a way to kill people.
And it's a deliberate policy.
And they have absolutely no conscience to do this.
Well, this Walker guy is no dummy.
And I have never seen a better explanation of the deep corruption in big pharma than in this next clip.
Because I'm going to read this exchange because it's just such a perfect encapsulation of everything that's wrong with our system right now.
So here's Walker.
Here's the Pfizer guy.
Big Pharma is a revolving door for all government officials.
Journalist, wow.
Walker.
In any industry, though.
So in the pharma industry, all the people who review our drugs, eventually, most of them will come to work for pharma companies.
And the military, defense government officials eventually work for defense companies afterwards.
The journalist says, how do you feel about that revolving door?
And Walker says, it's pretty good for the industry, to be honest.
It's bad for everyone else in America.
Journalists, well, why is it bad for everyone else?
Walker from Pfizer.
Because when the regulators reviewing our drugs know that once they stop regulating, they're going to work for the company, they're not going to be as hard toward the company that's going to give them a job.
Very smart.
Remember, he was sort of challenging.
Well, isn't that the way the military-industrial complex works, too?
Are you going to complain about them?
Well, we do a little bit of complaining there as well.
But it's such a rotten system for them to get away with it.
And some would say, see this rotten capitalism, what it breeds, it creates it all.
But that is not what free markets are all about.
This is capitalism, you know, distorted.
It's corporatism at its worst.
And it doesn't reach the definition yet of fascism because they don't have the boots, the Brown Boots Underground, tearing down doors.
But the damage is almost worse because they tend to be more successful in getting away with this.
And people become more complacent.
And then there are some people who have jobs and more people are invested and they want to keep it going.
But It's a wicked system and it should be.
Corporatism should be considered worse than fascism because it's more pervasive.
It's more sneaky.
The tricks and they can get by with it more because people get convinced.
Sort of like when it was tough at the beginning, we found out that corporations were curtailing free speech until it dawned on anybody, well, they're just doing the bidding of the government.
So this is all the bidding of the government.
But just in reality, they work together.
It's a collision, a collusion that they do.
And that is where the real problem is.
And so they have their system.
They have political benefits from this.
But they also do a lot of damage to our cause of saying, you know, we believe in trade and freedom and markets.
And you say, yeah, but look at what it did.
Look how the corporations went along.
And the corporations do not represent.
You know who was really great on that issue was Anne Wren.
Oh, she hated the corporations.
And yet she was an absolutist on objectivism and said, no, they can't do this thing.
But she predicted very clearly that the corporate people would be the worst people and they would destroy the country.
She's right about that.
We Ought to Prepare00:02:26
Well, I'm just going to close out by thanking our viewers and listeners.
If you're not subscribed to Ron Paul Institute for updates, they're free.
We never give your name out to anyone else.
Just go to ronpaulinstitute.org and hit subscribe.
You're not going to get something every day.
Maybe we'll do a weekly update on a particular topic.
So we just would like to be able to get in touch with you.
And that's the only way we can.
So thanks for doing that.
Thanks for hitting like.
Thanks for hitting subscribe.
And I'm going to turn it back over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I, too, want to thank our viewers very much for tuning in and giving us our support.
I'm very pleased with what is happening, although I'm worried at times, but not in the sense that I don't think there's an answer.
I think there is an answer, and it's not complicated, so that's very encouraging.
So I put a lot of blame on constitutionalists and libertarians for having a philosophy that to me is so wonderful, it's morally defined, and it's so successful when people follow it.
But the big problem is, is there's so much temptation to try to get a free ride and get benefits, get involved, become interventionists, and think and be convinced by the propagandists that it's so necessary to protect our Constitution by having intervention in our economy at home and the welfare system at home, as well as intervention overseas, because it's a total failure.
And this whole idea, it's just, to me, it's a mixed blessing because free markets and sound money, which we had at one time, created tremendous wealth in this country.
And therefore, people in the country could lie back and take it easy and just spend the money, which we still do.
We're still consuming our capital.
But we don't have to work as hard.
And people then get complacent about it.
And they don't realize the preservation of liberty is the must that we have to do.
Because eventually, if you lie back and just say, well, we've done well before and we can still do it.
We have fooled the world.
We have the military and we have a dollar that they've given us license to print.
We're the super counterfeiter of the world.
It's going to end.
We ought to prepare for it because, like I say, there is an answer.
It's not complicated.
It's a wonderful answer because the more liberty, the more prosperity, and the more peace that we'll have.