Hidden Meanings In NYT's Nord Stream 'Revelations'
On Tuesday the New York Times published an incendiary story - based on anonymous Biden Administration officials - that the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines was carried out not by the US military, as Seymore Hersh has discovered, but rather by Ukrainian forces not associated with President Zelensky. Why put out such a transparently bogus counter-narrative? Many reasons. Also today: more revelations about Fauci's malfeasance come out in House Covid hearings. Finally - what does yesterday's Syria vote mean?
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 well.
Doing well.
Have a few items that we need to understand and pass some information on to our viewers.
Once again, we welcome our viewers.
We had a lot join us yesterday.
I don't know if you noticed.
That was great.
So we appreciate the attendance and the willingness to support us.
But we have an interesting program today.
It's really, really different.
It's not quite critical like World War III is starting tomorrow, but it sort of addresses a subject which is a little weird.
And, you know, last, what is it, about a month ago now that I was explaining to the world that how the pipelines got blown up, you know, and Hirsch, Seymour Hirsch, did a great job.
And of course, he's highly respected, and we think he's a great reporter, one of the old-fashioned truth tellers.
And he explained to it, and he shocked the world, and he really shocked the administration.
It was America, United States did it.
Why would they ever do anything like that?
And of course, we have our ideas about that.
But it made Biden look bad and all that, even though the evidence was presented at the time that they said they would do it.
You know, if Russia does A, we're going to do B, it will blow up.
That pipeline's not going to last.
So they threaten to do it.
And then now that it's happened, all of a sudden it looks like they're trying to escape any blame whatsoever and blame somebody else.
And this was an article put in the New York Times, so we have to take that into consideration.
But they have a different theory about exactly what happened.
And it's not exactly going to make the administration happy.
Yeah, it's really an amazing thing because, okay, the criticism of Hirsch's article was that, oh, this is unsourced.
You have unnamed sources.
Therefore, the whole thing is invalid.
Well, of course, everything the New York Times and Washington Post reports from the Biden administration is all unsourced, including this refutation of Hirsch's article.
Now, Hirsch's article came out a couple of weeks ago, two or three weeks ago, and it had been unanswered by the administration except for the blanket denials.
No, we didn't do it.
So that was very strange that there was no response.
And so now here, finally coming, is the response.
And the response turns out to be so preposterous, so blatantly implausible, impossible on its face that you have to wonder whether the New York Times really believes that its readers are that stupid or that America is that stupid.
And let's look at the, if you can put it up right now, this is the article.
It came out on Tuesday, just two days ago.
Intelligence suggests pro-Ukrainian group sabotage pipelines, U.S. officials say.
Again, unnamed U.S. officials say.
So what they're saying, basically, Dr. Paul, is that a pro-Ukrainian, anti-Putin group blew up the pipelines.
Well, you might say, well, yeah, that's the U.S. military, right?
Pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin.
So they're basically admitting it.
No, they're saying there's a group out there that was able to pull this off now and then put on the second one.
Now, here's a little caveat.
They're saying U.S. officials say they have no evidence that Zelensky or his top lieutenants were involved in this.
And I think, Dr. Paul, without taking this too far, that's a warning shot.
Right now, we don't know if Zelensky's behind it.
It doesn't look like he is, but it sounds behind the blowing up.
But someone in Ukraine blew this thing up, acting as if in the middle of NATO exercises in the Baltic Sea, in the middle of these exercises in one of the most surveilled parts of the world, somehow a group rented, chartered a boat, put on some snorkeling equipment, went down and blew up these pipelines.
It's just absolutely implausible and impossible.
Yeah, it becomes absurd.
But Hirsch did exactly the opposite of explaining the details, the scientific details, and what it really involved.
And, you know, I thought maybe they just dropped something down there and blew it up and no problem.
But it took tremendous amount of technology.
And the point you're making, of course, is what they're talking about, they couldn't possibly have done it.
I think they even sought to see the actual vessel that was supposed to have done this.
And even what they described, it makes it impossible for them to have done it.
And yet they do it with a straight face.
You know, the thought that crossed my mind with this is, you know, they're dealing like they always do.
They're dealing with truth and lies and who's telling the truth and who can make the biggest lies.
But this is almost a reflection, yes, they're lying.
But it's almost like they don't even understand the opposition.
It's not that they're just against the telling the truth, but it almost reveals that this is going to be satisfactory to counteract telling the truth.
And it really builds the case for the people who are telling the truth because this is so preposterous.
It's out of ignorance, I think, that they talk like this and think that people are going to buy this.
And of course, it's authentic, though.
I mean, a New York Times, you know, it's in the New York Times, so it must be true.
But that idea of the New York Times being the determiner of all this news, that's passed.
But anyway, they keep trying it, which to me comes across as there's a bit of ignorance in this and stupidity on how they think this is going to change these perceptions.
But I think it's actually very clever.
And I think what they're trying to do is a couple of things.
First of all, they're trying to bury the Hearst story.
And I think they relatively successfully did that.
Now, that story was getting some traction in Germany, the Hearst story.
It was getting a lot more traction in the German press than the U.S. press.
And we'll talk in a second about how the German paper Tweit, which is close to, they say, the U.S. government, how they had their own, but in a second, but bury the story.
That's number one.
And also, you know, the whole thing that, well, Hirsch is just a blogger.
We're the New York Times.
Who are you going to believe?
You know, they still want to carry on.
But here was an amazing thing because Seymour Hirsch himself was on an interview.
And you might want to get ready for your headphones on this one because he was on a live interview when this story broke.
And I remember when it broke.
I was on the road and I almost had to pull over because I couldn't believe it.
But here's Hirsch on an interview when the person stopped and said, you're not going to believe what just dropped.
A New York Times article.
Let's listen.
Now it starts right away.
So let's listen.
Full screen that before you hit play if you can.
There we go.
Let's listen up.
What?
It can't be true.
They can't be that stupid.
Are they that stupid?
What do I care?
I'm going to go look at the New York Times now.
Oh, my God.
Intelligence suggests Ukrainian.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Okay.
No, I haven't seen it.
No, I can't comment on that stuff.
What do I know?
I've written a couple of other things about it.
I'm going to write something next week again about it.
And that's the way I do it.
It's pretty incredible.
That's his own old newspaper.
But he was entertained.
Oh, my gosh.
He's got to be that.
Go over that.
They can't be that stupid.
So the New York Times has changed, evolved, or devolved.
It hasn't gotten better, obviously, but they'll hide behind that.
But, you know, in this case, it wasn't that difficult to have truth glaringly show that somebody else is telling a fib.
But sometimes it's more difficult.
But I think they accomplished the opposite.
Now, you say it's interpreted a little bit differently in Germany, other places.
But when the dust settles here, I don't think they're going to.
I don't think Hirsch is lying awake at night saying, oh, they've ruined my reputation and this sort of thing.
I think he'll survive it all.
And now, right now, I think there's going to be a lot of people look for that article he writes next week.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's hope that he has more, and he probably does.
But, you know, we talked about site the German paper that wrote about it kind of hand in hand with the New York Times.
They filled in some of the gaps, apparently.
And here are a couple of things that they said that they found out, that the clandestine operation at sea, this is a summary of what, was carried out by a team of six people according to the investigation.
It's said to have included five men and one woman.
According to the report, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants, and a female doctor who are said to have transported the explosives to the crime scene and placed them there.
The nationality of the perpetrators is unclear, etc., etc.
Now, all this happened under the watchful eye of the United States military intelligence in the middle of military operations in that exact area.
And if we can put up a clip, I think we're going to have to go forward a couple.
If you can put up the next one, because this is Moon of Alabama.
Yeah, here we go.
Stay here for a second.
So this is Moon of Alabama looking at, because it's Bernard from Moon of Alabama.
He's German.
He reads the German press.
And so he's the one that provided a great analysis on Moon of Alabama website.
Now, he responded to the German report by saying very simply, no.
You do not dive down to 80 plus meters for an industrial-sized job involving the placement of hundreds of pounds of explosives.
Someone says a thousand pounds, actually.
Hundreds of pounds of explosives in eight individual charges on very sturdy pipelines from a sparsely manned sailing boat.
Such deep dives require special gases, special breathing equipment, special training, a decompression chamber for emergencies, and lots of well-trained people to maintain all that stuff.
And he concludes, this is just more chaff thrown up to divert attention for Seymour Hearst's revelations that the U.S. military, under order from the White House, carried out the act.
Well, the opponents to Hirsch and others that want the truth, I can't see where they have any credibility whatsoever other than the fact that they might become entertaining, how ridiculous they are.
But anyway, there'll be others out there.
You know, they're not all going to react the way we do.
And our understanding or listening to Hirsch, they're going to say, oh, see, if they want to be on that side, there are the diehards.
But that whole thing is splitting.
You know, our government, you know, the Democrats were 100% unanimous on anything.
You know, the administration said no matter whether it was Biden or whatever, they had one message.
But that is cracked.
And this is a reason why this is a good thing to have this information come out and look so bad.
At the same time, other things are happening.
The Congress is waking up.
up.
There's a few progressives that are talking more.
Congress Waking Up00:06:18
We had a little conference up in Washington, a little rally, and the sentiment is starting to change.
And I think that always has to happen before policies get changed.
Yeah, I think so as well.
I wanted to put up a couple of tweets that talk about this from a couple people that we know.
Garland Nixon is the first one.
I finally had the chance to meet him in person.
You mentioned Washington.
I finally met him in person.
I've been on his show a lot.
He's such a great guy.
But he has a great tweet.
He says, breaking news.
The CIA alleges that five random clowns in a sailboat penetrated the most highly patrolled body of water on earth, drilled through concrete at incredible depths, and planted 1,000 kilograms of highly unstable C4 plastique, then remote detonated it with a pulse sonar.
And that encapsulates this perfectly.
And Caitlin Johnstone, who also spoke at one of our conferences, she has a very good comment to remind us if we can put that next one on.
She says, remember, kids, Cy Hirsch's Nordstream report is untrustworthy because it's unproven and relies on anonymous sources.
And here she copies the New York Times piece where it keeps saying, U.S. officials say unnamed officials, unnamed officials, over and over again.
But I would just say one final thing about this, Dr. Paul.
I think two things are happening at once.
I think, first of all, it's absurd.
It's outrageous to claim nobody buys it who knows anything about anything.
That's one thing.
But I do think it's not without a purpose.
And I would put forth that the purpose is simple.
First of all, put Ukraine on notice, that their patience is wearing thin in Washington.
And here's my exhibit A for that.
If you can put this next one up.
This is from the New York Times, which we could just basically say the Biden spokespeople, because that's what it is.
And they report that Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations.
So they're angry.
The U.S. government is angry about this, obviously.
And put the next one, here's a bill of particulars, what they've done without our permission.
They did a strike on Russia's Saki Air Base.
They did a truck bombing that destroyed part of the Kurt Strait Bridge.
They did a drone strike at Russian military bases inside the Ukrainian border.
And if you do the next one, they also killed Daria Dugina, an innocent civilian in Moscow without the U.S. permission.
Now, on the one hand, the U.S. always says, hey, we don't tell Ukraine what to hit and what not to hit.
Then all of a sudden, we're looking here in the New York Times and they're saying that the U.S. is angry because Ukraine is doing stuff we don't want them to do.
We haven't given their permission to do this.
I think this is a way of saying, be careful.
We can easily pull this trigger.
We can Noriega you any second by leaking another piece like this.
So that's number two.
I think number three, they're setting in motion an exit strategy.
Bakhmut will fall very soon.
It is the linchpin.
Even Zelensky himself said Bakhmut is the linchpin to Ukrainian defense in that region.
Bakhmut will fall.
Even the head of NATO said that it's going to fall.
So there's an exit strategy there.
And the third, I think, is to again kick Germany in the teeth, kick Schultz in the teeth and keep the Europeans down.
So as preposterous as the whole thing is, Dr. Paul, it does serve very important purpose for the Biden administration.
Yes, and what Zelensky has to face up to is his 100% total dependency and his positive attitude.
All I have to do is call a speaker.
You know, yeah, you got Nancy running shit over there and say, Yeah, we're going to do whatever.
But so far, the Republican speaker isn't on the airplane yet.
And he has to be so naive to believe this.
And that is a reason that eventually it will be a calamity.
It'll stop.
Right now, he can't give up and say, well, yeah, I guess we better be cautious and we better, you know, do such and such and cave in.
But I think you sort of alluded to the fact that this thing will keep building and building, and he will be the one that will lose credibility.
He has ridden, you know, what is it, you know, a good many years now and collected a lot of money.
And, you know, the bankruptcy that we're going through is a help to us because we have problems here at home.
And people are becoming aware of that because the voters in this country are starting to suffer.
They start to understand that they're paying for this and they see the foolishness of it all.
So, yes, I think Zelensky's days are numbered, and how it will come about or whether he'll just say, well, maybe he'll wake up and say, you know, this is a fruitless cause.
I've lost my support.
Right now, I would say he's not there.
He's probably still going to continue to do his, I'm a victim.
I need you.
You have to do it.
It's not for me.
It's for NATO.
It's for Europe.
You know, this sort of thing.
We're saving you and calling attention to the Russians are coming.
The Russians are coming.
And that's not going to fly.
I think that people are waking up.
And that's exactly what Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war.
Remember?
I'm saving you, Americans, from this evil Iranians.
Oh, great.
Thanks, Saddam.
Thanks.
Here's some money.
Next thing, he's on the end of a rope.
So that's how it works.
Well, I just, before we move on, I just want to thank our sponsor for the program this month, and that is 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com.
You'll sense a theme in a lot of the work that we do, which is that we're on the verge of World War III.
Things are getting pretty nasty out there.
People are doing things that they have never done.
They're poking at horticulturs that they've never poked at before.
And that should make us all worried and nervous.
And the first thing that we should do, because there's not much we can do about world affairs, we can take care of family affairs.
And taking care of family affairs includes making sure your family can eat in times of crisis.
Not only a world-ending crisis, but a simple bad snowstorm can cause you to not have enough to eat.
And that's where the folks at 4Patriots.com come in.
They have great survival kits for just a couple of weeks all the way up to an entire year: breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Easy to prepare, packed made in the United States of America.
Jordan's Questions Unveil Redfield00:09:10
U.S. veterans do receive part of their profits.
You can enter Ron for a 10% discount on your first order and free shipping for all orders, $97 and above.
They arrive in very sturdy containers that you can put under your bed and put away for decades, and they remain tasty and good.
4Patriots.com, enter RON for your discount.
Very good.
I want to bring up the subject of our national doctor, Dr. Fauci.
And maybe Rand will get a chance to resolve that minor problem.
But the question I have about Fauci, you know, he's been in the news and Jim Jordan.
Jim Jordan has done a pretty good job in exposing him.
But, you know, he has done something that no other single doctor ever even came close to.
He dominated medicine by fibbing and lying and distorting the truth and put more money into investigation.
He's got more involved in politics and more undermined the scientific aspects of medicine.
And now he's sort of caught, I don't think it's pretty close to saying he got caught in a bad lie, big lie.
And Jim Jordan did a good job in exposing him on what happened and why they've changed their minds at the last minute.
But with these hearings going on, Fauci, Fauci can't remember a lot.
All of a sudden, he's forgetful.
But so we're going to hear some more about this because I think some of these hearings are going to continue for a while.
But it sure goes, it's going badly for him right now.
But he's somebody that's gotten away with too much, I mean, too much destruction.
But it looks like he had to build a strong support for his position.
And the support among his close allies at the CDC wasn't so strong.
And he had to do a little finagling in order to get them to change their minds.
Was it a political opinion where he was having his mind changed?
Or were they changing their mind because those doctors who switched and changed their opinion for the benefit of Fauci did it for their own self-interest and not for the interest of the government, not for the interest for the American people and some truth about vaccines?
Yeah.
I mean, there was a blockbuster.
I think this was the first hearing on the origins of COVID committee.
And Jordan, as you say, he's a firecracker.
He really went after Fauci.
Now, he had Robert Redfeld, who was a CDC director at the time when it first came out.
And what's this sort of becoming more and more exposed?
And what may be the downfall of Fauci is very simple.
And that is that Fauci, as we know, offshored the gain of function research after Obama said this stuff is too dangerous, no can-do, we got to end it.
He said, okay, I'm going to go to China and do it.
So he outsourced it there.
And then when it seems like the virus leaked from the lab they were working on in China, which was funded by the United States government with Fauci's money, when it seemed like that happened and people started saying, you know what, it looks like it's leaped from the lag, leaked from the lab.
He did everything he could to cover it up because I think he knew he was in the hot seat for putting it there in the first place where it didn't belong when he was told not to do it.
So he's done everything to try to do this.
And now it comes out in the Jordan hearing that he even sidelined the head of the CDC, Robert Redfeld, who had been standing beside Fauci for a while and standing behind him.
Now it looks like he's throwing Fauci under the bus because it turns out that Fauci froze him out of everything when Redfeld expressed a little bit of concerns that this might be a lab origin problem.
Yes, and, you know, when he was being interrogated by Jordan and others, he couldn't remember names in the meetings and what he said in the phone call.
And, you know, everybody was, well, you can't remember all that stuff.
Well, you can maybe look it up.
But I got to thinking that this is a pattern.
And I think one thing that I've tried real hard not to ever do, because I have a medical background, but that doesn't make me knowledgeable about every disease, everything that goes on in medicine.
It gives me a chance to look at it maybe more critically.
But, you know, he's forgetful, and it could be just natural.
But I keep thinking, but this has been going on a long time.
If I'm not mistaken, long time ago, he supported the principle of natural immunity.
And he changed it, and then he couldn't remember.
Now he has something else.
So I'm just wondering if this could be a medical problem that we're looking at.
And of course, the political problem there and his goal of being the most famous doctor that ever lived, I think is a different story.
But he is selectively forgetful when it might hurt his scenario.
And it's a shame that our government, our country, and our system has allowed this to go on for so long.
But this is the stuff that was predicted by the libertarian physicians that I knew way back even in the 1950s.
They warned about this.
And that's why they said government should not be involved in medicine.
It'll become political.
And how could it get more political than this?
And now we're looking at the process of the lockdown of CDC and all the rules that they had and all the vaccines that were pursed on people.
There are articles now pushing and explaining that the probability is pretty strong that more people have died from the treatment than ever died from the virus.
Yeah, it's so sick.
Well, as you always said, science is all about discovery through trial and error.
That means nobody is ever the science, despite what Fauci tried to say.
Now, here's a little clip from an article that we read via Zero Hedge, and this is from the hearing, if we can put that next one up.
And one after this one, if you can.
Here we go.
Now, this is Redfield, former director of CDC.
He said there was an a priori decision that there's one point of view we're going to put out there.
And anyone who doesn't agree with it is going to be sidelined, said Redfield.
And as I say, I was only the CDC director, and I was sidelined.
So here we have going against your principles, the scientific principles.
And in fact, we have about a minute and eight seconds that I've taken from the hearing where Redfield talks about how Fauci sidelined him for coming to the quote wrong conclusions about the origin of this virus.
If we can play that first, I think, minute and eight seconds of that second clip that we have, I think that says pretty much everything we need to say.
Here we go.
Three years ago, if you thought it came from a lab, if you raised that, you were called a nut job.
You got censored on Twitter.
You were blacklisted on Twitter.
You were even called a crackpot by the very scientist who in late January sent emails to Dr. Fauci and said it came from the lab.
They called you crackpot.
Is that right, Dr. Redfield?
I think the most upsetting thing to me was the Baltimore Sun calling me a racist because I said this came from a Wuhan lab.
Dr. Redfield, you ran the CDC and you were on the coronavirus task force.
Is that right?
Correct.
That was formed on January 29th, 2020.
Is that right?
Correct.
Two days later, Dr. Fauci gets an email from Dr. Anderson, which says, what?
Virus looks engineered.
Virus not consistent with evolutionary theory.
Is that accurate?
That's my understanding.
Next day, I know, did he share that email with you, by the way, Dr. Redfield?
No.
As a member of the task force, as a head of CDC, did he share that email with you?
No.
Okay, next day, February 1st, Dr. Gary sends Dr. Fauci another email.
That email says, I don't know how this happens in nature, but it would be easy to do in a lab.
Did he share that email with you, Dr. Redfield?
You did?
Did he show you that email?
No, no, no.
So he's frozen out because he had the wrong opinions based on his scientific background about that.
I think we're getting closer to the truth on this, Dr. Paul.
The only danger is you're going to find a lot of people that are going to get bogged down into the quagmire of those evil Chinese did it.
In fact, there's someone else that was evil behind this, and it was not the Chinese government in this particular instance.
Well, he didn't point it out, but this was the episode that prompted the two people that were excluded, and then they got converted and they came back and voted with Fauci.
And guess what?
Quick Update on June 3rd Vote00:06:46
Their career was boosted with more money to spend at their will.
So there was money involved.
And that's why, that is the reason why medicine should not be, you know, partners with the government.
We don't want, we understood a thousand years ago that you shouldn't take religious, spiritual beliefs and combine them with the government because the government dominates, you know, what the message should be.
But that is true in anything that we do.
Once you turn that over, if it's economics, then you get a deep state and they run it and you have corporatism.
But in this case, if you do it with medicine, they become dominant and they get mixed up in profiteering and political power.
And that is what's been going on for especially gotten so much worse in these last three years.
It has to be reversed and it won't be reversed until we get even more of this.
So that's why this committee work is so crucial.
Yeah, I hope Fauci's sweating.
Well, we've been going on long on these two big stories, I think, but we do need to have a little quick update on a vote yesterday, if we can put this next one on.
Now, the House voted on the Matt Gates resolution.
It was a resolution based on the War Powers resolution to withdraw troops from Syria.
Now, that resolution did not pass.
It was a vote of, as you can see here on the board, 103 yes, 103 voted to get out of Syria, pull those 900 troops out, and 321 voted against it.
And I think if you hadn't had a lot of experience in these kinds of resolutions, there's a risk of being downtrodden.
But however, you've had a lot of experience in this exact thing.
You and Dennis Kucinich did this, and you have a different take on these numbers here.
Yes, I think they're pretty darn good.
What do you compare it to?
Our votes when we tried to get people to wise up about the Middle Eastern war.
Now, if we took a vote today on what we should have done, I think we'd be in a lot better shape about the Middle East because, you know, it took them 10 and 20 years to wise up and get out.
And they still debate the big issue.
How do you leave?
And, of course, my answer about how do you get out of Afghanistan and places like this, don't go in in the first place, you know.
So I think my comment that I wrote down while I was looking at it is not too bad.
Not too bad.
Because as you refresh our memory about the resolutions we did, we could quite a few, and we had several Democrats would come over and vote with us.
But I think it's pretty good.
But I think this is the reflection that there's more public support for this position than there was when we started this.
And I think the momentum is there, and I think it's going to continue.
And that's why I cautiously now consider the fact that maybe World War III, of the old-fashioned World War II type, will not break out tomorrow because for two reasons.
One, we're broke and the people are sick and tired of it and they're getting poorer and maybe we don't have the stomach for it and maybe that's all wishful thinking, but it's a possibility.
Absolutely.
The one significant event around this, I think, is that the progressive known as the squad, they joined Matt Gaetz.
They went across the aisle.
I'm sure they don't have a lot in common with Matt Gaetz.
They not only came across the aisle, they also released a letter urging a yes vote on this.
So we might be seeing, I hate to be too optimistic, the beginning of a kind of right-left coalition against these wars that we saw a lot back when you were in Congress.
And that would be a very welcome thing, I think.
Wonderful.
Well, I'm going to close out by having an announcement, and it's a big one.
It's a save the date announcement.
Anyone who has ever gone to our conferences, I believe in my heart, has had a great time.
We love visiting with people.
People love visiting with each other.
Well, we're putting together our program for this year, and the first date I will announce is June 3rd in Houston.
We're going to go back to the beautiful hotel we were in last year in downtown Houston.
So, mark your calendar.
We're going to hopefully get tickets on sale for that pretty soon.
June 3rd in Houston, the first Ron Paul Institute conference of the year.
Stay tuned.
More details as they come.
Should I put that on my calendar?
Please do.
Yes, I will.
I look forward to it.
Please do.
And also, it's a place that we can get to very easily.
But we will welcome people from whatever.
You know what always surprises me at these conferences?
We do get them from around the country, but you know, quite a few times we get people from out of the country too.
There's people begging and pleading and looking for messages of liberty throughout the world.
I don't think they can kill the ideas, they can't kill truth.
So, therefore, we're doing our best to spread the message of liberty.
And we couldn't do it without the support.
You know, if we had no viewers whatsoever, we'd probably get discouraged.
No, but we do.
There were small numbers 20 and 30 years ago, but we really welcome the support, and our support is building.
Our program is gaining more strength.
So, it's a big thank you from me.
And Daniel started off by having a good time at our conferences.
And that was always a closing statement for me when I did my rallies during the presidential campaign.
This is serious stuff.
You can talk about the lying and cheating and killing and all the things that the CIA is taught to do.
And that is not the final answer.
Because when people come together that are like-minded, you say, Aren't you just speaking to the choir?
Well, a lot of that, but a lot of new people come too because they're inquisitive, and a lot of people just want to expand their horizons.
And guess what?
That's why I personally like the conferences, especially when I talk to young people who have been just recently joining the freedom movement.
And it's always exciting to me to hear what was it that changed your mind?
How did you end up with some common sense?
And most of your friends probably aren't there yet.
And that type of information is very, very important to me.
And I think that we can tell you that the people who have come, it looked to me like I had a good time.
That's why I'm looking forward to the conference that we're having on June 3rd.