New information coming from Congressional investigations reveals that a group of scientists initially concerned that Covid may have come from a lab-leak were "prompted" by Fauci to refute that theory. They later got millions in grants! Also today: massive UK scandal reveals callous disregard over government lockdown policies. Finally: Homeland Security is running domestic intelligence-gathering operations...just like Ron Paul warned from the beginning.
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.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this Monday morning?
Well, doing well.
Lots of things going on.
You know, we had choices.
Some are very exciting and some are just same old stuff, but more news on it.
We want to start with something that is not brand news to a lot of people because we're not surprised that Fauci was caught and lying.
Can you imagine such a thing?
Shocking.
But this came from Zero Hedge and the title is Fauci prompted, boy, that's terrible.
Prompted scientists to fabricate, that's cheating, proximal origins, that's in code, proximal origin paper ruling out lab leaks, House GOP.
And, you know, everybody knew there were some shenanigans going on there.
But this is the one where they're caught cold-handed.
They knew what was on.
This is a time when there was, even though Fauci knew from the beginning, he's the one that sent the money over there and set up the investigation and the research.
So this became known.
They knew they knew it.
So they needed to get together and a group got together and they had a call.
This is important, important.
Although with that phone call, it wasn't unanimous that they had to come clean and tell the story and give them their position.
Fauci put the pressure on them.
And I'm sure the corporations put some pressure on them too to come back.
And they cover themselves and say, oh, oh, no, it was really just came from the lab.
There was no shenanigans going on at all.
And they tried to excuse themselves that it was all nature.
See, they didn't want anybody to believe in a natural immunity, but they wanted to believe this virus just came normally out of nature and they were on top of it and they were going to stop it.
So it's just more lying.
And I guess people, at least the people that we visit with, they're not surprised when they hear another lie, but it's still important to report it.
Hopefully more and more people will change their mind.
But there's a lot of people.
I think I read today that people in, it's either Cincinnati, no, San Francisco.
A person could go to jail if they don't have their mask on.
Still, you know, they never quit.
Yeah, it's incredible.
And this may be actually the first benefits we're seeing from a GOP takeover of the House because there was a hearing of the Senate Select or the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
And they released a memo just yesterday.
And we're just sort of pouring through it.
Thankfully, our friends at Zero Hedge have looked at it and have gone through it.
But essentially what we're talking about here, and we can put on that first clip when we get a chance.
And I should have clipped the memo, but I don't have it.
But essentially what happened is that Fauci had a phone call, a group phone call.
Let's put the next one up now.
He had a phone call with at least 11 other scientists on February 1st, 2020, very early on in the so-called COVID crisis.
Many of these scientists said they believe that the virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, which was funded by Fauci, was offshored by Fauci when President Obama correctly said gain of function research is too risky.
Shut it down.
We don't want it.
Fauci said, okay, I'm going to send it overseas.
So the scientists said, we think that it may have resulted from this leak in Wuhan, China.
And they do the next one, and we'll see what Fauci did.
Two authors of this proximal origin, which says there was no lab leak, absolutely, absolutely.
They initially expressed their concerns over the lab leak, and then they changed their tune.
And as the Washington Examiner reports, they've received millions in NIH grants under Fauci.
So they initially thought this could have, this sounds like a lab leak issue.
Fauci said, we want you to write a paper that says it's not that at all.
They said, okay, and then they wrote the paper.
Fauci said, see, the scientists said there was not a lab leak.
Hey, want some money?
Here's some money.
It's what he did to the scientists.
But from the initial call, because there were some people resisting, after a week, a day or two, I guess, when I talked to the real bosses, they all joined in and signed the paper.
And yet there was already a break in.
But I think it's the money behind the scenes that puts the pressure on them because, you know, if the pharmaceuticals and Fauci get discredited, that's not good for the authoritarian government and for the deep state.
So they had to put this lie out.
They thought, of course, this lie now is turning into be a bit of a problem for them.
And it shouldn't surprise a lot, but what surprises me are the diehards that just say, you have to begin, if you don't believe your government, there's nothing left.
And I guess there's less and less left right now.
But, you know, I was kidding myself when I said, well, this is a tale of two liars.
Fauci's been lying very well up until right now, is being caught.
But who else is in the news here for the last several months who's been a fantastic liar?
And that's George Santos, the congressman.
But, you know, I guess there's degrees of lying.
Sometimes some lies are really deadly and people die over them.
People go to war over it.
So there are more deadly lies than the other.
And then there's such a thing called white lies.
I don't know if there's even a definition for that, but people like to make lying sometimes worse than other.
But I would say the Fauci lies are very, very bad, and they've led to death.
But if they're talking about truth out on the table to have credibility and for the people to trust their government and trust the FBI and the Department of Home Security, they have to have some, you know, they have to be upfront with us and tell us the truth.
And, you know, I keep thinking of something that nobody will pay much attention to because, you know, it's so far removed from reality.
I think lying under oath to your Constitution might be, you know, in the scheme of things, that might be one of the worst type of lying possible because everybody in the country, you know, they go to war, they blindly go to war and kill people and sacrifice in their children die and everything else, but it's all for the Constitution.
Well, how did you start this war?
Oh, well, yeah, it's an executive order.
The president wrote an executive order.
So there's, but still what we're facing is a crisis in credibility and lying.
And I think this is fits my definition of the age in which we live, the age of deceit.
Everything is built on deceitfulness.
Not everything.
Very close to it, yeah.
Certainly when it comes to government, well, let's put on this next clip from the same article because this kind of takes us through what happened.
This is the timeline, and it's very, very important.
The U.S. was doing risky gain of function research on U.S. soil until 2014 when the Obama administration banned it.
Four months before the ban, Dr. Fauci offshored it to Wuhan, China, to the New York nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.
After COVID broke out down the street from the Wuhan Institute, Fauci engaged in a massive campaign to deny the possibility of a lab leak.
He was covering his tracks.
He was warned, doing this gain of function research is very, very dangerous.
You must stop doing it.
He said, I know what, I'll move it to China.
And then when it got out, he started having a panic attack and said, I got to do something.
Now, here is something from that House memo.
And this is why it's very important.
And this actually really bolsters what Senator Paul has been saying all along about this.
Now, this is a quote from the Congressional House subcommittee on this.
He says, new evidence released by the select subcommittee today suggests that Dr. Fauci, quote, prompted the drafting of a publication that would, quote, disprove the lab leak theory.
The authors of this paper skewed available evidence to achieve that goal.
That is a very, very powerful claim.
These are the same scientists.
They were bought off with million-dollar grants.
They skewed the evidence to help Fauci cover his own tracks about the gain of function research and the release of the virus from the lab.
This is massive, massive, massive.
And it would be nice if it were the thing that finally brings down Fauci.
And I think I don't have any insights, but my guess is that there's some feverish activity in Senator Paul's office right now putting this stuff together.
It would be great for some questioning, I think.
You know, over the years, Fauci was supported by the Democrats and the Republicans.
I mean, by both sides.
So they're not likely to decide, well, what is justice?
What do we do?
First thing, don't you think we should remove any taxpayers' benefit going to people like this?
Others would say, well, they should be in prison, you know, all kinds of things.
But what are the odds of that happening?
It is, you know, the whole system and this glorification of Dr. Fauci, the head of the medical field of the whole country.
He knows whatever he says is gospel, which was rather sickening to a lot of doctors.
Some were too silent.
Others vocalized this and said that this is a corruption of our medical system.
And to reverse that is a big job because doctors are still being punished by this.
And the wokeism system and the whole thing of corporatism, and you already alluded to that, is there's benefits that come politically and benefits that go to companies.
Now, medicines is run by corporations.
You have corporate medicine.
You don't have a medical trusted person that deals with patients.
That's not the way medicine works these days.
Well, there's another scandal that's coming out, and it's not directly related to the U.S., but indirectly it's definitely related to the U.S.
And that goes with the U.K. government's response to COVID and the massive, oppressive lockdowns that they had.
And the story is very complicated.
I'm going to try to simplify it.
So Matt Hancock, who was the health secretary under Johnson's government, he got together with a journalist.
Well, he got together with a lot of women, but that's another story.
But he got together with a journalist in a professional way to write a hagiography about the COVID and how he was such a great leader.
When this journalist, Isabel Oakshot, started looking through all of the papers that he gave her to write this book glorifying him, she saw some things that horrified her.
She saw that the government reaction in the UK was absolute cynicism and really downright hatred of their own people, manipulating people, manipulating fear, using fear to control people.
In one of the worst dystopian things you can imagine.
And you can put that one back up.
This is from the Telegraph, which did a good job.
Finally, they're releasing the lockdown files, similar to the Twitter files.
But here he says, Matt Hancock's plan to, quote, frighten the pants off everyone about COVID.
Subtitle, leaked WhatsApp messages reveal how health secretary hoped to shock the public into complying with every changing lockdown rule.
And go to the next one because this is pretty damning.
This is from his WhatsApp, talking to an aide of his.
Here's Matt Hancock.
How do we keep pushing this lockdown is a question.
He said, quote, we frighten the pants off of everyone with the new strain.
But the complication with that Brexit is taking the top line.
His aide says, Damon Poole says, yep, that's what will get proper behavior change.
And Hancock said, when do we deploy the new variant?
You know, and that had been a joke in a meme, deploy the new variant.
It turns out it wasn't a joke or a meme at all.
It was him saying, we need to use these things to terrify people into doing what we say.
And in this over the surface, we'll call it science.
We'll call it science, but it was about the exercise of raw power.
You know, in one other, excuse me, in one of these reports, they were talking about this very issue.
And this is a quote from the newspaper, The Telegraph.
Throughout the course of the pandemic, officials and ministers wrestled with how to ensure the public complied with their ever-changing lockdown.
And here's the key, the lockdown restriction.
He says, one weapon in their arsenal was fear.
Fear.
You know, it was scare the pants off and fear.
You know, I couldn't help but think of that horrible, horrible, well, truth teller, Herman Goring.
Yeah.
Because he says that is a tool.
When they ask him, how do you get innocent kids, even in Germany, who've been through World War I, and how do you get them to volunteer or go and comply and get involved again?
Scare them.
Scare them.
And how did they, that same technique was used for COVID?
Scare them, scare them.
And there's still a lot of people still scared.
So it's a technique that must be a human trait.
Some are more extreme and more obnoxious than others.
But this whole thing is scare people.
It's sort of like the absolute opposite of a libertarian who wants to use facts and figures and reason and persuasion.
Because anything worth it.
So this is coercion when you have to lie to people.
That is a form of coercion.
People get punished for lying, you know, things like it.
But this is sad, and people die from it too.
So it was used, but most of the time, you don't see it quite so blunt.
So blunt.
Yeah, just scare them to death.
They're a bunch of creeps anyway.
They'll fall over doing what we tell them.
We're the government.
Scaring People Into Compliance00:10:06
We're the elitists.
And all you have to do is look at Bill Gates and Bauchi and a few others.
And boy, are they the elitists of the world?
He didn't think anyone was going to see this because the other part of the story is that he signed a non-disclosure agreement with this journalist, with Isabel Oakeshott.
They had a non-disclosure agreement, and he thought this stuff is never going to get out.
I don't have to worry about it.
She broke that agreement.
And what's interesting is that at least half of the people in the UK are furious with her.
They think it's all her fault.
And there was an interview.
We tried to get it up.
It was on FOC, it was on Sky News in Australia, an interview with a journalist, and she makes a very good point.
She said, what journalist worth her salt would come across this material, even with the non-disclosure agreement, and simply ignore it?
What journalist worth anything would not realize that the public's right to know overtakes even the possible prosecution or whatever's going to happen to the journalist to pay the price to inform the people.
And I personally find her a hero.
I don't know a lot about her, but she took a lot of personal risks by doing this.
But she's being attacked routinely in the UK by all sides for releasing this information.
I think that's crazy.
But it's funny you mentioned Bill Gates because here's something else that came out.
And this is from the Daily Mail.
Put this up.
This arrogance.
Matt Hancock joked about Bill Gates' COVID vaccine conspiracy theory by telling AIDS the Microsoft billionaire owes me one considering, quote, how many people I'm getting his chips injected into.
So he's making a joke about the conspiracy theory that these vaccines have chips in them.
He's making a joke about it, but saying, I'm helping out Bill Gates so much.
And he went on to say, he better put in some nice words about our Conservative Party in the UK because we've given him so much help.
Yeah.
You know, the lying and scheming and scaring people is, you know, the softer word is disinformation.
You know, disinformation sounds so soft.
But that's what they're engaged in.
Disinformation, you know, presenting this stuff.
And then even like you mentioned, the British got annoyed because they got caught.
And he shouldn't have ever caved in because your job is to protect us with your lies.
So they do this, but what happens to the disinformation that's been going on since 2016 with our government?
And the goal was, you know, they took it and twisted around and said, oh, this stuff is so bad.
We're going to be historic.
We're going to impeach the president twice for this.
So that was their way of sorting out truth.
And that is not in the defense of everything Trump ever said or did.
But it means, though, that the other side is pretty darn ruthless that they can do that.
And disinformation is too soft a term to use.
I mean, they outright lie and cheat on disinformation.
And it's up to the people.
It's up to the journalists.
That's why we express such concern about the attack on the journalists.
And that's going on and on.
And yet we're seeing here, have you noticed there's several that have been well known.
They might have been strictly in the progressive camp.
And then the progressives weakened on their position.
And some of those individuals are coming over to us with our pro-civil liberties and anti-war position.
So there is a shift in the political spectrum.
And I think the principles that we're supposed to always follow is that of nonviolence.
That you can't use violence and that you should make everything voluntary.
And you will have more credibility.
And of course, I think more peace, too.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, you know, while the UK government officials were laughing and joking about making people terrified and locking them down, this next clip shows a more serious side.
And this is the journalist explaining again why she did what she did.
If we can put that next clip up.
And she makes a very good point.
She says, children committed suicide because of lockdown.
While they were laughing about making people fearful, kids were killing themselves.
And we happened to know someone who had that tragedy happen to their family.
And it's awfully horrible.
And it makes it difficult to contain anger.
over people like Matt Hancock who thought the whole thing was just a lot of fun.
What a treasury.
Just awful.
Well, the next one we're going to categorize, you won't categorize this, I know, and you won't like it, but I'm going to put this in the Ron Paul was right again category because our third story of the day, if you can put this up, is from Politico.
And it's a very, very interesting, very lengthy investigation.
We don't have time to go into all the facts.
We encourage everyone to go to Politico and have a look at this long report.
Department of Homeland Security has a program gathering domestic intelligence and virtually no one knows about it.
Now you warned from the beginning in 2002, my baptism of fire on your staff is when DHS came, authorization came, the creation of this, and you said they're going to turn it inside.
They're going to turn it toward us.
They said, no, Ron, it's just for the terrorists.
You said, well, let's watch and wait and see.
Well, here we go.
Here we have it.
I guess it shouldn't surprise too many people because the logic then was that if they make something bigger and it's government and it's bureaucratic, it's going to go badly.
You know, it'll go the wrong way.
And that's why sanctions and trade wars and punishments, this is short of war, this isn't war, but things go badly.
And this, this has, it's a monster.
And what do you do?
You can hide more things.
Who's really in charge now?
It looks like, you know, there's a whole idea that we were supposed to be a nation of independent states and law and order, except for the four or five things that were listed in the Constitution, was not to be a federal crime.
And this was done, but all of a sudden, with the Department of Homeland Security, it's a monster.
And I think the biggest thing about it is it doesn't get much attention.
You'd have to say, we haven't even done a very good job of keeping checking on them.
So maybe more people will watch what they're doing because I know one thing back when we were voting on that, that once it got passed, I didn't feel any safer.
All of a sudden, it's like most of this stuff, you feel less safe.
You say, oh, good, we just set the troops over there and we don't have to send any ground troops.
We'll send bombs and we'll do this and that.
And people are excited.
And we're going to take on Russia and we can handle that.
And Ukraine will be an independent republic again.
So that is the kind of naivety that goes on and it just doesn't work.
And people would be, I mean, it takes a healthy skepticism of just about everything that government does.
There's not a whole lot that they, in our lifetimes.
I think the last hundred years hasn't been so good for the Republic.
Yeah, well, this is the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, part of the Department of Homeland Security.
And what they have been doing under the radar, which is revealed in a big tranche of documents that Politico is reviewing, is they have been using, even as a domestic, as an intelligence member of the intelligence community, they have been traveling around the United States interviewing Americans about things, interviewing even prisoners, local jails and federal prisons.
They are interviewing them.
And this they do not have the authority to do explicitly.
And let's do this next clip because this explains why three legal texts govern intelligence and analysis activities.
Title 50 of the U.S. Code, which lays out laws about national security.
Executive Order 12333, which details how the intelligence community works, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which set up Homeland Security.
And this is important part.
The U.S. intelligence agencies governed by Title 50, of which this is one, face strict rules related to intelligence activity in the U.S. targeting U.S. citizens.
They have clearly, clearly put this aside, this obligation aside.
Again, from the article, put this next one up because if we can get, there we go.
So many tasks seem to be law enforcement matters and not for an intelligence organization.
And these are people from within Homeland Security Department, Dr. Paul, complaining about what's going on.
How do any of this related to our Title 50 authorities, even if we're technically allowed to do this?
Should we?
What was the intent of Congress when they created us?
Departmental support seems like a loophole that we exploit to conduct questionable activities.
Says a couple things here, Dr. Paul.
One, there are some decent people that are working there that do have our civil liberties and the Constitution in their mind.
We can't condemn blanket, you know, blanket manner, everyone working there.
But two, that it's sufficient enough that people are willing to go out on a limb and risk their careers by saying, this is wrong, we shouldn't be doing it.
You know, this is similar to the issue that Ed Snowden brought to our attention.
Decent People Uphold Liberties00:02:46
Yeah.
Because all of a sudden he was in the middle of knowing that they were spying on Americans and using the Patriot Act to do the very thing that it was supposed to prevent.
So that is something that people realize, but it was the FBI and the CIA that was doing this.
But what happened to, you know, being a patriotic American saying, look, we need to clean up our act.
He's a man without a country, you know.
And the rest of that continues because we even had a whole conference one time about the whistleblowers that they don't get credit and they get punished.
And that's where the real tragedy is.
It is.
Well, I do want to say a word from our sponsor, and that's 4patriots.com.
You know, I was coming into work today this morning, Dr. Paul, listening to a podcast that I often listen to, and they were talking about food shortages in the UK.
And they were talking about soaring prices and the fact that you will walk into a store and there will be no fruit or vegetables available.
Eggs, they said only the very highest, most expensive, exclusive eggs are available.
The average person is not able to afford these things, even if they can find them.
As we know, the Chinese are not having this problem because they are hoarding food.
They are putting food away.
They see something that the rest of us don't.
The question is, why?
What do they see coming?
Well, nothing good.
They're the number one food importer in the world, and they will be safe when the rest of us won't even have any eggs to eat.
But thankfully, our friends at 4patriots.com have some great kits that you can buy to be ready for anything that might happen.
A four-week kit, a three-month kit, a one-year survival food kit.
You can survive with breakfast, lunches, or dinner.
It doesn't have to be the end of the world.
It could be something as simple as a bad storm like they've been having in California.
You might want to break out some of these foods and eat them.
Enter Ron for a 10% discount on your first purchase.
The number 4patriots.com.
They come in sturdy containers.
They can be stored for decades and they're easy to prepare.
So please visit our friends at forpatriots.com.
Enter Ron, get your discount, and get prepared.
You know, this reminds me of a biblical story about the seven years of plenty.
And then all of a sudden, somebody there writing that one showed that they might have understood the business cycle.
They probably were inflating.
Matter of fact, there are histories of inflation and the importance of gold.
So you live beyond our one's mean, and then you have to live beneath their means.
And we've had our plenty.
It's not just going to be England.
It's everywhere.
That's why we have more street people.
Inflation's Legacy00:02:35
I don't, you know, I have some memories of the Depression and the war, but I don't ever remember seeing pictures like we see now.
And not only that, is the attitude about it, that the people who come in and invade your property, invade your house, invade your pocketbook, if they get caught breaking windows doors down, they get paid for it.
And others, in another time, is something that would happen in a free society.
People just can't do that, but there's no respect for private property because the government owns it and they figure, well, we'll do what we want.
The government will come to our rescue.
And they do.
But the government's running out of stuff.
So that's not going to last for very long.
And, you know, there was one last tidbit.
Do you have another one?
Yeah.
No, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, I'm going to close with the Capitol Hill Police.
FBI failed to share credible threats before January 6th.
Can you believe that?
Another one.
So we've been taught, we've talked about that a whole lot and how they've been mistreated.
The people who have been captured and put in prison without due process, and it goes on and on.
But they were ready to take over the government.
Well, where were their guns and tanks and planes and tanks?
Oh, they hadn't gotten any yet, you know, but there was a takeover, there was a coup and on and on.
But what was discovered is that there was a lot of information with the FBI and the Capitol Hill police, and they're realizing they both knew a whole lot, but they didn't communicate very well.
So it wasn't known.
Nancy never heard about it.
So she couldn't do much.
So that is one thing.
But when you think about it, because I happen to have a great deal of sympathy to at least listening to those who say, well, we're going to find FBI agents aggravating that thing.
Maybe if they have enough time to ever look at those films.
And then they say, well, maybe that's the reason they didn't coordinate or coordinate.
And they probably did coordinate.
They probably did coordinate because they had to set things up to have a reason to, we had to impeach that president again.
And if he gets re-elected, probably, you know, if they have control of the house, they'll work on it again.
But what we want to do is impeach the ideas that drive it to these places where we are now.