It was one of the most heavily-censored views in the United States. Anyone suspecting the Covid virus had escaped from a (US-funded) Chinese lab was "racist" and had to be silenced on mainstream and social media. Suddenly the Biden Administration admits it's probably true. Thus we see the danger of censorship: it doesn't combat disinformation...it destroys truth. Also today: Hungary demands an investigation into the Nord Stream attack. Finally: Drones fall deep into Russian territory...is the CIA behind the targeting?
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 today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing fine.
All right.
Doing good.
All right.
Trying to sort things out.
What's on the menu?
Something good and something bad.
Yeah.
But it's a mixed bag today.
There is some evidence that truth is breaking out every once in a while.
A little late.
Better late than never.
It's amazing the people that knew the truth before, they were punished for it.
And they don't, on the surface, they never seem to get rewarded for them having been right.
But the people who had been wrong all the time doesn't faze them a bit because to them, truth is relative.
And they say, well, all we need to do is join the bandwagon.
We can't fib anymore, you know, or lie to the people because the people are starting to realize.
And of course, we're talking right now about some news on the COVID lab leak and that there really was strong evidence according to our government, the administration, that it really did come from the lab.
I don't think anybody has the motive down 100% and why they did it and what was the purpose of it.
But I don't know whether you really have to think you're going to find that out.
But being from the lab sort of verifies a little bit of the argument Rand had been making for a few years, you know, that it really came from the lab.
And this is important because a lot of people got sick, a lot of people died, and a lot of people lost their freedoms.
And a lot of people, and that, you know, nobody would want to admit it because people did literally die from it, the patient.
But what about the people who lost their, you know, jobs and their positions in medical research and all?
And, you know, the violation of our liberties, individuals, how many?
And how many people are still suffering from myocarditis and whatnot?
But anyway, it looks like the government's admitting it.
And I think the story originated maybe in the Wall Street Journal.
But what we've picked up is from a friend who sort of summarizes all this.
And that is a good look toward Turley, Jonathan Turley, who's been great in this reporting.
And I think this is great because a few weeks ago, he did an article that I found one of the most fascinating ever because he summarized this whole issue of having objectivity in journalism or you have an ulterior motive to be in journalism.
And he says they actually teach, don't mess around, don't waste your time with objectivity.
And that is what we're facing.
Even though the truth is coming out about this, it's going to take a while to get people confident about it.
But this is a mini step in the right direction.
And I hopeful it catches on, just like we hope the anti-war movement catches on to and continues to spread.
Well, let's put that first one up because there's the article we're talking about, the initial article we're talking about.
It came out, I think, yesterday.
It was a blockbuster in the Wall Street Journal.
Lab leak, most likely, origin of COVID-19 pandemic.
Energy Department now says U.S. agency's revised assessment is based on new intelligence.
Yeah, supposedly that's what they're saying.
But our purpose in covering this is to get beyond what some of the partisans would say about it.
Now, the Republicans, when they view this admission, they say, ah, that tells us the Chikoms were behind it all along, those evil Chinese.
And Nolan will talk about the very, very strong U.S. role in funding and running the labs at Wuhan.
How much were we involved?
How much were our scientists involved?
How much was Fauci and his partners involved in it?
And what does that say about our policies?
But the other thing that's important, as you suggested, Dr. Paul, if you can go to this next one, it is Jonathan Turley's point that yes, it really is a breaking news, you know, blockbuster that they admit that the lab leak is the likely cause, but the real issue is the censorship.
And it's interesting that you'd mention Senator Paul because I actually have a clip, and it's actually not him on it, but it's Hannity talking just before he has Senator Paul on about the senators' struggles all along against this censorship.
And if we can just watch that first one minute of that first, let's listen to this first minute, if you want to put on your earplugs there, Dr. Paul, and let's listen to Hannity talking for a minute about censorship.
Over the last three years, perhaps no one in Washington in the swamp has been more accurate when it comes to COVID than Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky.
He was right about the lab leak.
He was right about therapeutics.
He was right about natural immunity.
He was right about masks.
And now, years after Paul's Democratic colleagues ridiculed him, called him names.
Well, the senators, you know, refusing to wear a mask.
They've made a big deal about that.
Take a look at this headline from the New York Times: quote, the mask mandates did nothing.
Will any lessons be learned?
Citing an Oxford-trained epidemiologist, the article reads, quote, there is just no evidence that masks make any difference, full stop.
But it's not just the New York Times.
Here's Biden's own COVID-19 response coordinator.
Take a look at this.
I mean, the notion that you could cut respiratory infections, there's no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.
So you're never going to get the kind of benefit from mandatory.
Amazing.
It's amazing, yeah.
And as you say, you don't get any credit for being right.
He's not getting any credit for being right all along.
But you think they feel sorry and shameful that they made a little mistake?
Yeah, right.
Oh, boy, what a mess.
But it is all about the censorship.
And we should really take a little trip backwards in time because when people were talking about this lab in Wuhan and the role it might have played, put on this next one because this is from Turley's article.
He said, for years, can we shrink that down a little bit?
It's difficult to read around the sides here on the screen.
But he says, for years, media and government allied to treat anyone raising a lab theory as one of three possibilities, conspiracy theorist or racist or racist conspiracy theorist.
That was it.
He said, as late as May of 2021, the New York Times Science and Health reporter, Apoorva Mandvili, was calling any mention of the lab theory as racist.
So that's what they used to silence anyone questioning this at the time.
Do they use the word very often about cover-up or deceitfulness?
I mean, but he goes on and on.
To me, it's amazing that they can do that for years and be so nasty and willing to destroy people's lives.
And then when they're caught cold-handed on it, they just say, oh, okay, what do we lie about tomorrow?
Yeah, yeah.
But we didn't mean it.
It's okay.
And this is just part of the science.
Their type of science.
But, you know, I still think the big deal is the whole thing about how we were involved.
Because this really dream that we had been for a long time following non-interventionism.
We wouldn't be in China subsidizing a lab secretly without congressional approval.
And then things like this came up.
It just wouldn't happen.
We wouldn't have to try to evaluate what their theories are.
But it turns out, and I guess people will, Fauci's still denying things, though.
But I mean, the evidence is overwhelming that Fauci was involved.
United States taxpayers' money was involved.
It was done in secret.
There were cover-ups made.
There were a lot of lies told.
And it also reveals that obviously there was a collusion between the Chinese government and the United States.
At the same time, we're trying to have a nuclear conflict with them.
We're trying to stir up a fight over Taiwan.
It just goes on.
Nothing consistent about it.
But that's sort of their cover.
I figure, well, we're okay because we're not really working with them.
That's exactly what they were doing.
What happened here, though, is so disturbing because what we see is that even academic journals joined with government and the media in suppressing scientific inquiry about this whole thing.
And as you've said many times, when you have all of these elements getting together, the so-called free media, the government, the scientific academic community all getting together to suppress speech, you've got almost a fascist situation.
And here's from Turley's article, if you put on this next clip, because he points out the role that once respected medical journals played in suppressing this.
And he says, others in academia quickly joined the bandwagon to assure the public there is no scientific basis for this theory, leaving only racist or politics as the motivation behind the theory.
As in early 2020, with little available evidence, two op-eds in The Lancet, February, and Nature Medicine went all in on the denial front.
The Lancet op-ed said, We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
That is really frightening how they all gain together around this narrative.
Yeah, that's right.
And, you know, to find out why it spread and who did it, was it on purpose or just stupidity?
And I still, I have a hard time leaping in and said, well, they did it on purpose.
They were trying to kill everybody in the world.
I mean, this is just a little bit more than I can take, even though some people are capable of doing and talking that way.
The same thing is, I had trouble ever believing that the United States maneuvered our country into war in 1941.
But that's off the subject for today.
But one of the reasons why they have these labs, and one of the reasons we were over there, is there was some danger involved, and it wasn't run through out in the open.
If this was really above board and real science, you know, this wouldn't do it.
So you have to suspect, well, why are they doing this?
Well, you know, everybody learned a term about they were doing there.
They were working on gain of function and changing, altering these viruses.
And obviously, you know, I think some of the illnesses and things that came of it, I don't think that fulfilled a precise plan of what they were doing.
I think they were messing around and it got out of control or whatever.
But if you look up and say, what is this gain of function?
And the two top things they list, what they're trying to do in the lab here is to increase the ability to transmit a virus and also to increase the virulence of the virus.
And I thought, well, maybe they were tinkering and maybe they had some really scientific reason, but they don't believe in science anyway.
But here it is, and then to have it out of control and have government mess up, that's not a giant leap of assumptions because most of what government does is messed up.
But that, of course, indicates that they were up to no good from the very beginning.
It would have been prevented if we would have had a different foreign policy.
Yes, exactly.
It wouldn't have happened.
Well, you mentioned earlier Turley's great piece a couple of weeks ago.
I think it was about how the media views itself now as an advocacy organization rather than reporting truth.
Now this next paragraph from Turley's piece really underscores that, that the narrative control is what they're interested in.
If you go to the next one actually, he says the categorical rejection of the lab theory is only the latest media narrative proven to be false.
The Russian collusion scandal, the Hunter Biden-Russian disinformation, the Lafayette Park photo-op conspiracy, the Nick Sandman controversy, the Jesse Swolett case, the migrant whipping scandal.
He points on and on and on.
The media is in the business of narrative control, not of reporting the truth.
It's a great point.
I think I have to be careful, you know, thinking if we don't know for sure, we need to give them a little pass here and there until we know.
But when you read that, you say, they don't deserve much of a pass because the evidence is already in.
But the evidence is so much stronger now.
You had to go searching two and a half years ago for this information.
It was all done in secret.
You'd think the United States Congress would know this.
And the other thing, I said, this wouldn't happen with a decent foreign policy.
But you know what?
It wouldn't happen if you had sound currency because who would pay for all this?
But the fact that we have the ability to print all this money and finance this kind of stuff, I don't think it was ever written up on a bill where the members of Congress were voting on, okay, we're going to send in umpteen billion dollars to China to work on manipulating viruses to see if it could ever be used as a weapon.
You know, sure, that was not ever going to happen.
Yeah.
Well, let's look at the conclusion because I think it's powerful, and I'm sorry for reading so much of this on the show, but I really think it's worth thinking about.
This is his main point after talking about the censorship, and it's so important.
He says, by suppressing alternative scientific and policy views, the public was denied a full debate over mask efficacy, vaccine side effects, COVID origins, and other important issues.
Many of those questions are only being recognized and worthy of debate.
They're only now being recognized as worthy of debate and legitimate.
And then he says, censorship does not, as President Biden claims, save lives.
And we remember what it felt like a couple of years ago when we were only on YouTube and we were terrified if we mentioned some of the studies on masks at the time that were drawing into question their efficacy.
Well, now you can see the New York Times saying, you know, that's just fine.
But back then, we would have had our whole show canceled.
It would have been gone.
We would have disappeared.
Thank God Rumble's come around and given us a chance to have more free speech.
But this is deadly, and I think Turley is suggesting it here.
Censorship is deadly.
It kills people.
It doesn't suppress disinformation.
Censorship's Deadly Consequences00:12:57
It's used by those in power to maintain power over the rest of us.
You know, figuring this out, it gets clearer and clearer when you start understanding exactly what their goals are.
But, you know, we should try to understand what their ulterior motives are.
And that's hard to do because there's a psychological thing.
What really was the motive for doing all this research, so-called research.
And then there's a lot of ignorance out there that people will get involved.
I mean, some of those people that were involved in discussing it, they were plants.
They were totally ignorant and author.
But I have more recently been emphasizing the fact that there's a big picture here, too.
And that is that this whole principle of lying, cheating, and stealing is becoming more prominent.
And it's the thing to do.
It's the moral norm.
And that, of course, I call nihilism because people who come to this point don't believe that there is such a thing as truth.
They say they won't look at us and say, well, you have to have truth in science.
So they would reject science outright.
And that's part of it.
They think they use their reasoning powers.
They say, that's a waste of time.
You guys are, what are you wasting your time about trying to figure out what we're doing where you can justify it by reason?
So it is something a little bit different, even though I thought I think these kind of things existed throughout history.
I think at times it becomes more prevalent.
Right now, we're living in the age of nihilism where they don't have to know and there's no guilt and no remorse for what they're doing.
And their measurement probably is power and money.
Yeah.
It really does.
Sorry, I was going to say, it really does remind you of the communist era, the earlier communist era, especially, where entire fields of science were subverted in the name of the historical inevitability of the Marxian view.
They destroyed science to serve the party and the state.
It's not very fun that we're going in that direction, I'll tell you that.
Well, let's move on.
This is interesting because we want to keep this story alive.
It's very, very important.
And now one NATO member country has come out very strongly in favor of a serious investigation on the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.
And of course, no one would be surprised to hear that it's not Germany, the one that was aggrieved and attacked, but actually Hungary, which has shown a good amount of courage and has tried to stay neutral in this conflict.
And here is their foreign minister, Peter Siarto.
Hungary demands you an investigation into scandalous attack on Nord Stream pipelines.
Let's listen to a short clip of him explaining the rationale for demanding this investigation.
You might want to put in your earplugs here, Dr. Paul.
I think we have 38 seconds of this clip to hear Siarto talking.
Whatever happened at the Nord Stream pipeline is really scandalous because this is basically the first time when such a major European critical infrastructure was attacked by whoever, but it was attacked.
And such kind of an attack must be considered as a terrorist attack, basically.
And we support a comprehensive, deep, structured, and detailed investigation what has happened.
I'm not sure if that has sounded.
It's very poor at the end.
We don't have too much on it.
Yeah, but he's just making the point that this is a terrorist attack.
And why is nobody else interested in finding out who did it?
He said this is the first attack of this scale on critical infrastructure within the European community, and no one seems interested.
So I think they get credit for asking it, but the real question is, why is Germany so sheepish about this?
Why do they seem unconcerned about this?
You know, in the reasons why this pipeline was, it was resented by the United States.
We didn't want them to build it.
And then after it was built, we didn't want it to last either.
And they were very blunt about it.
But the excuse they were using, our side was using why we didn't want Russia to do this was that it would give Russia an edge.
And then if they wanted to blackmail, you know, if Germany became dependent on it, this would be blackmailed.
So therefore, they were protecting the Germans by denying them, you know, a chance of having trade, which is supposed to be good in a freer society than what we have.
And also, I mean, I had not heard too many people write about that or read too much.
But there's also, I'm a little bit more suspicious.
I think dollars had a lot to do with this, and that had to do with how many oil profits you've made.
Our desire to control the oil markets worldwide.
But you know what?
The pipeline's gone, but we're not selling the gas right now.
Well, we've got that LNG that's going over there two or three times the price, and that's why the Europeans are freezing.
Yeah, freezing.
So we'll see.
I don't know if you think there's ever gonna be a real, I mean, it looks like Seymour Hersh is right, at least in sort of the main, A lot of people are nitpicking on some of the details.
But at least in the overarching thing, he's very seldom wrong.
So I wonder if there was an investigation, how could they come out and say, yes, the U.S. and Sweden did it, and Norway did it, and what would be the implications?
You know, what would Germany do at that point if it had to admit that one of our closest allies blew up our infrastructure and cost us billions of dollars, attacked us, literally.
It's an act of war.
You know, our friend, philosophic friend Edward Snowden, did you see that?
Yeah, that was good.
That comment was that this whole idea that North Stream was pointing out that they also, you know, they're denying it, denying it.
He says they denied being involved in the Bay of Pigs and so many other things.
And of course, everything that he was revealing back then, they denied too.
So the fact that we denied that we were involved, and that doesn't mean a whole lot.
Yeah.
Means we probably did.
We probably did it.
Yeah.
I mean, certainly Biden and his group of neocons did it.
Well, the last one we talk a little bit about, it basically just happened today over Russia, and this was a large drone attack deep inside Russian territory.
We can put on this next clip.
A large attack coming from Ukraine deep inside Russian territory, up to 500 kilometers was the range of these UAVs, these drone attacks.
And what's interesting about it, we can turn on the next clip because this is a tweet about this.
Drones filled with explosives attacked the Rosneft oil depot and crashed into our territory.
So it looks like they were trying to hit the oil wells, the oil tanks here.
And the interesting part about this is not necessarily because this happens, and Ukraine's going to attack Russia, you know, if they can.
They're at war.
But the interesting thing, and I think the thing that's most concerning, Dr. Paul, is how deep does the U.S. role go in the targeting of these things?
Well, I think the assumption is a lot.
They have a lot to do with it.
But if you think of percentage-wise, how much is the United States responsible for this type of activity?
And I don't know why you can't approach 100%.
Because if we weren't in NATO and financing NATO and pushing these policy, getting involved in a coup in 2014, this type of stuff wouldn't be happening.
But I think it's 100% that we have the moral and the military responsibility for this.
And once again, it would not happen if we had a different policy.
But the reason we have our foreign policy isn't to stir up trouble.
We wouldn't do that.
It's because it's going to make us safe.
We have to defend our freedoms.
We have to defend our Constitution.
We have to defend our liberties.
And we have to be involved.
We have a moral responsibility to do this.
And we're part of the community.
On and on.
It's just all nonsense.
The world could be so much different if they just changed their views a little bit.
from non-intervention and minding our own business away from warmongering.
Yeah.
Well, if you give someone a gun and you tell them where someone is and tell them to kill them, you do have some moral obligation.
You have to do some big time.
You know, some culpability for that.
Well, here's a little clip from that article, a little quote from that article, if you can put it up, because this answers part of the question, how do they know where to shoot, what to use, and how to target?
And this is from the article.
One December investigative report written by a U.S. Special Forces veteran said the CIA was behind many of the covert sabotage operations happening with increasing frequency on Russian soil.
So you have CIA teams in there, sabotage teams, potentially inside Russia, helping with the targeting, helping to do sabotage in Russia.
And that gets us closer and closer.
That is direct conflict.
And here's a piece from earlier this month when we talk about, well, how are they finding out where to shoot things?
This is from the Washington Post earlier this month that I remembered and brought it back up because it says, Ukraine's rocket campaign reliant on U.S. precision targeting officials say.
And go to the next one.
From that Washington Post article, it says, Ukrainian forces almost never launch advanced weapons without specific coordinates provided by U.S. military personnel from a base somewhere in Europe.
So this is very, very close.
This is as close as you can get to direct U.S. involvement.
And I think it also bolsters the idea that this war is really being driven from Washington, from the neocons in Washington, not from Kiev.
Kiev's a bit player.
They're the proxy.
They're the ones that are being slaughtered on their own territory to the delight of Washington's neocons.
And it appears to me and to others as very obvious that the whole mess that they're involved is is moving toward war.
And it's not an unintended consequence.
You know, if they were worried about that, they wouldn't be doing all these things because everything that we do and we have done, matter of fact, we always frequently, you know, just go back to 2014.
But you can go back further than that.
I mean, the whole thing of us being involved in that, then if you don't have enough satisfaction about World War II, go back to World War I and ask about how we were going to remap the world after World War I and getting involved in that.
And it just carries on.
It's a principle of not minding our own business and looking toward getting along with people in a different manner rather than threatening bombs and then pretending, oh, we're not involved.
Just some of our friends got a hold of a couple of weapons.
It's not our fault, you know.
And they have to defend themselves.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I'm going to close this down here and just thank all our viewers for watching the show.
We'll remind you to go to RonPaulInstitute.org.
We have a lot of articles.
We put up just a couple or three a day that you might be interested in to try to just kind of spark some ideas.
But also, while you're there, go ahead and subscribe to updates from the Ron Paul Institute, which is the parent of this particular show.
This is a project of the Ron Paul Institute.
So sign up for updates.
Again, as I've said over and over, we never sell or rent or list your name to anyone else.
You'll only stay with us.
But that way we can keep in touch.
We're planning our conference schedule for this year, so you'll want to be the first to know about that.
So, I will put a link in the description where you can go ahead and subscribe to the Ron Paul Institute.
And I too want to thank our viewers for turning in.
And we're feeling pleased.
You know, we changed our arrangement a little bit, and we're very pleased with Rumble.
And our numbers are going up.
More people are co-turning to our station.
So I think this is very good because we see signs of a shifting of an attitude.
You know, we find articles almost daily on why people are getting sick and tired of a war and they didn't use the old-fashioned Vietnam method of thousands and thousands of body bags coming back.
People are just waking up a little sooner because they're suffering at home.
More People Turning In00:01:20
They're suffering economically.
And the information getting out is pretty blatant and telling what really happened.
And we were very pleased with the anti-war rally that we attended last weekend.
And I think all these things are moving in the right direction, but there's also powerful forces against us.
But the one thing, those powerful forces are limited because they have to depend on a sound system that functions, which means that debt and inflation and these various things is going to do a great deal of harm to all that we do.
And, you know, we can always afford the Secretary of Treasury goes over there and it promises millions and millions of dollars more to Kuwait.
And who's it?
I think Biden does that about twice a week.
And they just keep doing packing it on.
It seems so strange that they're just, you know, trying to light the match and make things get worse.
But of course, I wouldn't challenge their motives.
They probably aren't like that.
But anyway, whatever they're doing isn't good, and it isn't good for the people of this country.
It isn't good for our liberty.
It isn't good for our financial system.
It's just a situation.
And it certainly isn't good for peace in the world.