In a Sunday interview, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he believes the US should be willing to go to war with China over Taiwan. "I would be willing to fight for Taiwan," Graham said. Of course he wouldn't be doing the fighting... Also today: US sends more war ships right up to Chinese territory. Finally: Macron has a De Gaulle-ian epiphany in China and the neocons are freaking out.
In a Sunday interview, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he believes the US should be willing to go to war with China over Taiwan. "I would be willing to fight for Taiwan," Graham said. Of course he wouldn't be doing the fighting... Also today: US sends more war ships right up to Chinese territory. Finally: Macron has a De Gaulle-ian epiphany in China and the neocons are freaking out.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, Daniel McAdams, our co-host, Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Very well.
Good, well.
Fortunately, there's still news out there, so we have something to talk about.
That is true.
But all the secrets are very secret, and it will be a while before we know all the secrets, but we did have a little discussion about secrets yesterday.
And it almost sounds like they're seriously concerned about it, but that's all.
We'll wait and see.
You know, how much is a gimmick or not?
But we're going to be talking about one of Republicans' favorite senators.
And I think he was well loved when Trump needed a defender and one of his trials.
But this is something else.
This is his foreign policy.
I don't think many libertarians or constitutionalists, and hopefully a few more Republicans, will say Graham does not have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to foreign policy.
He comes up a little bit short.
And now he is open to sending troops over there to defend the island.
You know, Republicans were, I think it was a Republicans, they wanted to bomb Mexico.
Yeah, that was yesterday, though.
So this is a new target.
We're going to just send soldiers.
I mean, this was talking about, not only sending military and, you know, play a game like we do in Ukraine.
This was literally sending, he was committing troops.
I wonder if he ever thought about the Constitution on that.
Because, you know, they'll make an excuse.
I was thinking, well, they might even use the AUMF that was passed on 9 day or 9th.
Yeah, really.
They'll say, oh, yeah, we have that authority to do anything we want.
There could be a terrorist out there someplace.
That's probably the reason why they were able to go after the people on January 6th.
They're terrorists, so we have the authority to do it.
Well, anyway, it's just another warmongering type of thing.
But the sad part is he's not going to be laughed at.
He'll be taken seriously, except there is a break a bit.
There are some now that are speaking out.
We've noticed it in a couple little votes, that there is an element of the Republicans who aren't rolling over to everything the Hawks are saying.
That means the military-industrial complex are not the total dictators.
So I think this is serious.
It's part of it.
A lot of Republicans and a lot of conservatives, a lot of Democrats are all for that because the drumbeat to hate China is really loud and clear.
And if you want to be in popular company when you're out discussing these things, you got to hate China, which is sad.
Yeah, you know, Graham, you remember, because we've showed the video on the show many times, he and McCain, if you remember during the Maidan coup in 2014 that the U.S. backed, he went over a couple of years later with McCain, and there's a video of them.
We've shown it on the show.
They're sitting in a room with the military and they're saying, you guys need to attack Russia.
This is the year of offense.
This is what Lindsey Grant said.
This is the year you're going to go on the offense, pushing and pushing for them to attack Russia.
Well, they're doing the same thing now.
You know, Lindsey Graham is playing the same game he's always played.
He's really a despicable person because there's a lot of blood on the soil in Ukraine and a lot of it's on his hands.
But he's pushing China to attack Taiwan just like he pushed Russia to attack Ukraine.
The same kind of thing, pushing, pushing, and pushing.
You know, the thing is that Taiwan really needs to wake up.
They need to look at the state of Ukraine right now after listening to people like Graham and McCain and the neocons because your country ends up destroyed.
Well, here's what we're talking about.
And our friends over at the Libertarian Institute had a nice write-up of it today.
So we thought we'd put that up.
Lindsey Graham is open to using U.S. forces to defend Taiwan.
Now, this is even worse than we're going to fight to the last Ukrainian.
He wants to fight to the last American.
But I love the way he says this.
Put this next one on.
He's a real tough guy, you know.
Graham said strategic ambiguity was not working.
However, declaring, quote, I believe in a one-China policy, but I would be willing to fight for Taiwan.
I'm sorry, Lindsay.
You're a little heavy and you're a little old, but you can have those fantasies if you want.
He says, I would be willing to fight for Taiwan because Taiwan is a democracy.
We stood with them for decades.
Besides, who gets sent?
The kids that didn't have a vote, really.
Lindsay doesn't get sent, that's for sure.
Yeah.
So it's the same old, same old, but it's ongoing.
And this is part of the big debate and the arguments about China, the whole attitude about China.
But this is more militant.
Most of the time it's sort of settled with sanctions and a few things like that.
But this is the most wildest, I think, suggested that's going out there.
And then they started comparing it.
Some people started comparing it to who's Whitaker Chambers?
Who's going to look like the Whitaker Chambers or not?
Oh, it would be the people who don't.
They want to say it's not the people who are nuzzling up to Russia.
It's the people who won't fight China.
So if you have to, that's a form of patriotism and just pressuring people because if you don't go along with it, you look like you're a very bad person.
Yeah.
And Lindsey Graham is just trying to provoke China.
I mean, that's just absolutely blatant.
Let's do the next one because here's another quote from him.
This is literally trying to provoke China into military activity.
He said, quote, I would move war forces to South Korea and Japan.
I would put nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on all of our submarines all over the world, he continued.
It's probably foaming at the mouth when he said that.
He additionally explained he was willing to send U.S. troops to fight for Taipei, a dramatic departure from long-standing policy.
He's saying, yes, I'd be very much open to using U.S. forces to defend Taiwan.
Well, I would say America needs to wake up and take a good hard look at Lindsey Graham because they're going to come drafting your sons and daughters and they're going to put them on Taiwan to get blown to smithereens.
So it's, you know, and for all the tough guy, look, I mean, after 20 years we lost in Afghanistan.
So this whole blustering and the U.S. is basically fighting Russia and Ukraine and it's losing.
So for all this bluster, I think you wrote about it this week.
It looks more like a paper tiger than a real tiger.
Right.
You wonder, how do they measure their success of talking like this?
It seems like they have a lot of failures and that there'd be second thoughts about what they're saying.
Now, I can't imagine too many people.
But you know, McCarthy, McCarthy didn't disown it or anything like that.
He just sort of, you know, was a little bit quiet about that and said, well, we have to look at this kind of stuff.
So that is a problem.
But it's why they don't look at it.
But even if you argue at the case before they do it and then when they do it and warn them when they do it, and then after 20 years, they never change their mind.
They just buckle down on it and think, well, they never think of it in the big picture.
And that is, is our interventions, foreign policy, and internal affairs, you know, a constitutional and a good position, you know, in a practical sense.
And of course, we haven't been able to find any benefits from it.
Oh, yeah, you have to support a few of these wars because otherwise it's going to hurt jobs.
There's jobs involved here.
We have to have somebody replenishing these weapon systems.
Yeah, so thousands of Americans have to die to decide who gets to rule Taiwan.
But not to be outdone.
And this is from our own dear state of Texas, Representative Michael McCall, who's very, very powerful.
He heads the House Foreign Relations Committee, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
And he said, to echo Lindsey Graham, sending troops to fight China over Taiwan is on the table.
It's on the table as a response to Chinese attack.
He said, if communist China invaded Taiwan, it would certainly be on the table and something that would be discussed by Congress and with the American people.
And here is, he was asked by Fox, put that back on just for a second.
He was asked by Fox News, are they really prepared to do this?
Is Taiwan worth it?
He said, I can argue a lot of reasons why it is.
And here's, we have a clip of him talking over the weekend, I think.
And what did I say, the first, I don't know, 40 seconds of this clip here.
It's worth listening to, McCall, if you want to put your earpiece in, Dr. Paul.
So, Speaker McCarthy and yourself have said that multiple times now, that we need to arm Taiwan now before there is any sort of invasion.
What about U.S. troops?
I think, you know, then you're talking about an authorized use of military force that would come out of my committee or a declaration of war, which we haven't utilized since World War II.
Would you support that?
I think if China, Congress China, invades Taiwan, I think that is certainly if the American people support this, the Congress will follow.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCall signaling he is open to sending American troops to fight in Taiwan.
Aisha Hosni has the exclusive report from Taipei.
Good morning, Aisha.
Okay, I think that's our.
You know, my first thought is it'll be okay.
You know, we emphasize a declaration of war and we'll go to less war, and that's the way it's supposed to be.
But in a way, it's sort of hiding behind it.
As soon as we declare the war, all of a sudden it's morally correct or something.
But, you know, just this nonsense, this talk and our constant interventions, the injuries that we do to people with sanctions, blockades, and all kinds of things like that, there's a moral hazard to this because what do the Taiwanese do?
Do they have much of an incentive to maybe protect their interests and do the best they can with their neighbors?
And so they have to continue to do this.
And when they hear the statement, how can we have any more defense than this?
I mean, America is this.
But the big question is, are we as strong today to be able to promise everybody these things?
And that's when a calamity happens because something happens and the American people are sick and tired and they don't want to send 500.
Can you imagine?
500,000 people went to Vietnam?
So they'd have to have a million people.
Besides, we don't have the money to pay them their salary.
And look at the supply lines if we have a million troops in Taiwan.
It's impossible.
I mean, really, these countries should open their eyes because they're going to get thrown under the bus.
Ukraine is getting thrown under the bus.
We both sort of wonder if these leaks are about the U.S. trying to extricate itself from the problem with Ukraine.
And the thing is, yes, we do spend more money than all seven or eight countries combined.
We spend more money on military.
But what do we get for it?
We can't even scrape together a couple of tanks to send over.
He says it's going to be a year.
We destroyed our industrial base when it comes to building things.
It's not World War II anymore where you just, you know, you've got an airplane factory and you turn the key and it becomes a bomber factory.
It just doesn't work that way.
And so it's really becoming more and more obvious that it's a hollow threat because all this money is basically wasted.
You know, it goes into the high salaries of the military-industrial complex.
It doesn't go toward our defense.
To me, it's amazing that the Chinese have different policies.
One is, you know, in terms of trade, they're more capitalistic.
They want to trade with people.
They want to sell us stuff.
We buy their stuff and then they up with capital.
And they buy our debt and subsidize us that way.
But they also, you know, spend their money on investments.
Just think if you took all the money the Chinese have spent in the last five years on investing overseas in the kind of thing oil or whatever they do and compare it to how much we spent on weapons to blow up.
You know, we buy those, we blow them up, and the military-industrial complex never complains.
They sort of do a little clapping.
Good job, folks.
You're defending our country.
Thanks a lot, yeah.
Well, before we go on, I do want to talk a little bit about our new show sponsor, American Financing.
We're really happy to have them on board.
They're supporting the big guys, the big show, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck.
They've supported Rush Limbaugh.
It's an American family-owned mortgage lender.
They've been in business for 20 years.
They're in all 50 states.
They help people with home loans.
They've got great Google reviews, so they obviously know what they're doing.
And they also have their employees on a salary basis rather than a commission basis.
So they will put you in a loan that makes sense to you, that makes sense for your own situation.
They're not going to send you something you don't need.
So if you need help with monthly bills, their cash out finance can help.
They're saving homeowners $100 a month.
Who knows?
Maybe more.
You might even be able to come out of the whole thing debt-free.
Again, it's a salary-based mortgage consultant.
They get you into the right loan, the right situation for you.
Tell them the Ron Paul Liberty Report sent you.
There is a link in the description.
You can call 888-9765.
Or you can go to the link at the bottom of the description, AmericanFinancing.net backslash Ron.
And back to you, Dr. Paul.
We're going to discuss some more provocations.
We're sending some new warships to the South China Sea.
Here we go.
U.S. warships sales near Chinese-controlled reef.
I mean, they have a reef over there, and I don't think they can park many aircraft carriers there.
But there's a reef, but it's a position of pride.
Are we going to defend it and not let people coming over?
And we have to show that we own the world.
So just we have to go right up against them and just annoy.
Maybe you say, well, it's the law of the land.
We can go there within 12 miles.
Oh, what happens if you go within 11 miles?
But just the whole idea of just antagonizing people, just looking for a mistake.
And there was a lot of that stuff going on before World War II, just to antagonize and make the conditions ripe for the war finally breaking out.
So it is, the warships are there, but I cannot see any benefit from that.
But, you know, the Chinese weren't bashful about what they were showing.
Europe's Strategic Ambiguity00:13:18
You know, basically, they just go back to making money and selling stuff and saying, hey, what happened to you Americans?
You don't believe in capitalism very much anymore.
We're out investing in mining.
Yeah, what are you doing?
We're selling shit.
Let's put up this clip, though.
This is from Dave DeCamp over an anti-war, and it just kind of goes with what we're saying.
You know, we're sailing.
The 7th Fleet is over there near appropriately named Mischief Reef because we're getting into mischief over there.
But it's the USS Milius within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-controlled reef in the South China Sea.
The whole thing about this, Dr. Paul, we said it over and over again.
We talked into Rabu in the face: it's very expensive to send these carrier groups over there.
And what does it do to defend the United States?
What does it do to protect the U.S.?
It does nothing but provoke these people to provoke these countries and make them angry with us.
And, you know, we feel like we're pushing uphill constantly.
But if the American people would only wake up and realize this doesn't help them, this doesn't make them safe.
It doesn't make them rich.
It's destroying our reputation and destroying our economy.
And we talked about it, you and Chris talked about it on Fridays too: how the dollar is just now all of a sudden nobody wants it.
Can't give it away.
You know, this is just propagandizing the foreign policy because, first off, having these ships made and having World War II type aircraft carriers, that is pretty old-fashioned.
It costs a lot of money.
But I think it's for show for the people back home.
But there's been, you know, military people writing about this, but I think a common sense would tell us that technology is so far along that if we have, I used to halfway be serious and thought, just get rid of all this stuff.
I think we could defend this country with six submarines because, you know, in a defensive thing.
But, you know, I wouldn't want to defense the world with all our interests and pretend we own the world with six aircraft carriers because they can be taken out so easy.
But that isn't it.
It seems like that doesn't slow them up one bit.
They still love to see those aircraft carriers and the jobs are good jobs.
And people back home like it.
And we need to show, have a show there.
And that's part of it.
But it's also what they don't want to talk about is, you know, we are so close to something happening that would be a mistake or, you know, a red flag, people doing something, a false flag, doing it on purpose, and blame it on somebody else.
That's always a danger.
Well, I love aircraft carriers myself, Dr. Paul, but I just like them to be in a museum because I like to go on them and see what it was like.
I went through the ship over here a while ago.
They're very fond to go in as museums.
And as you point out, they are museum pieces.
But I think we're going to, if you're ready, we might move on to Macron.
You know, Macron was given the orders to go over to China and straighten those Chinese out.
And he brought Ursula von der Leyen with him.
She's the European Commissioner.
And they were going to go talk it to Xi Jinping and tell him what's what.
He better mind his P's and Q's.
He better stop being so friendly.
Stop hanging out with this bud Putin.
Don't send any military stuff over there.
And you've got to get on board with this.
You've got to get on board with Ukraine.
Well, it didn't really work out like it was planned because, and you see this is from Politico, he gave an interview on the plane as he was leaving to Politico and other outlets.
And he said something that shocked the rest of the world.
And this is the headline: Europe, if you could put that back up, please.
Europe must resist pressure to become, quote, America's followers, said Macron.
Now, that was not the script they handed him on the way out.
It was a very different script.
And let's put the next picture up.
This is from The Guardian.
And this pretty accurately describes the reaction.
Macron sparks anger by saying Europe should not be a vassal in the U.S.-China clash.
And you can see him here hanging out with Xi Jinping.
I think he took him on a little tour to China, probably had some good food.
I think he took him to the birthplace of his parents, and they had a little chat.
And meanwhile, Dr. Paul, Ursula von der Leyen was left behind.
They didn't take her.
There was no room in the car, I guess.
But it's fascinating that when they sat down to talk, he changed his mind about so many of these things.
Yeah, and he sort of doesn't want to be beholding to the United States, but when he went over there, now the criticism will be he was buddying up too much.
It never crosses their mind.
Well, maybe they could be, maybe they could be non-interventionist.
But you know, he was the one that wanted to change the title to from strategic ambiguity, which has been used.
I'm always fascinated.
This sounds like a perfect political thing.
Strategically, we're going to be ambiguous, you know.
But he wants to call it a strategic autonomy.
Well, that's not the worst thing if that was truly the case.
But I'd like to say, why don't we have strategic non-intervention?
Yeah, that is strategic.
That's the one that I like.
And just strategically, we're going to mind our own business.
And who knows, we may, people would say, well, we don't want to live with wars going on all the time.
Well, maybe, just maybe, if we had a strategic non-intervention, there would be more peace than war.
And yet it never seems to change their mind.
But it's the propaganda.
See, I think the American people, I've said this many times, are more in our camp.
They don't have a gut reaction.
Oh, yeah, we want war.
We want to do all this.
But the propaganda is so powerful when you look at what they get out of the universities, what they get out of our politicians, what we get from the media, even the social media.
It's the propaganda that dictates.
And they might only be 15% of the populace.
And that is why we don't have to think about converting everybody out there.
We need to understand that 15% that influences the rest of the people.
And that, of course, is where I think we're making progress slowly.
And I'm not a huge fan of Macron by any stretch.
But what he said on the plane made pretty good sense.
If we can put it this next clip, here's one quote from what he said to the reporters on the plane.
And I think we can both agree on this, Dr. Paul.
He said, quote, the paradox would be that overcome with panic, we believe we're just America's followers.
The question Europeans need to answer, is it in our interest to accelerate a crisis on Taiwan?
No.
The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and the Chinese overreaction, he said.
That makes perfect sense.
And it reminds me of something that you actually brought up a couple weeks ago when we were talking about China.
It's Charles de Gaulle in 1966.
He was upset that NATO was not taking into consideration France's own special defense needs as it felt, partly related to its nuclear program and to other things.
It didn't feel that NATO was taking into consideration all France's needs.
So he pulled out of the military command structure of NATO in 1966.
And while they maintained good relations, he kicked all the military guys out of France, didn't want to be part of NATO.
And it wasn't until, and I hadn't remembered this, but it wasn't until 2009 under Sarkozy that France went back into the military structure of NATO.
You know, of all the countries they pick, you know, to emulate and criticize, but why don't they say if they have to have a country to say, why don't we be more like, I would say, the old Switzerland where they defended the sound money and they stayed neutral to the most part.
You know, that was so different.
And they did that, you know, at least on the surface, it looked pretty good.
And we were always impressed as kids.
Sweden and Switzerland, they're always neutral and they don't get involved in these shooting wars.
But to think about Switzerland doing that.
And to me, it was so sad when I saw Switzerland shifting their gears.
And they have so many things there that could set a good example for.
Even in their domestic politics, I'm so fascinated with it.
I was most fascinated with it because somebody says, do you know who the president of Switzerland is?
Well, it rotates so often nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
That's the type of president we need.
That's what we need.
That's probably offensive to all my off-hawk friends.
Well, in all fairness, our president doesn't know he's president, so we have a similar.
But I want to just talk for a second, Dr. Paul, if you'll indulge me about the von der Leyen thing, because, you know, she is a super, super hawk.
She's a super hawk on Ukraine.
She's basically a neocon, a European neocon.
Well, she went over there to wag her finger at the Chinese, as I mentioned earlier.
If we can put up this next one, here's what she said, the European Commission president.
She said, stability in the Taiwan Strait is of paramount importance.
European Commissioner President Ursula von der Leyen, who accompanied Macron for part of his visit, said, she told Xi during the meeting, the threat of the use of force to change their status quo is unacceptable.
And go to the next one.
And so she responded to what von der Leyen said by saying anyone who thought they could influence Beijing on Taiwan was deluded.
Just boom, smack down.
Macron agrees, appears to agree with that assessment, saying the Europeans cannot resolve the crisis in Ukraine.
How can we credibly say on Taiwan, watch out, if you do something wrong, we'll be there.
If you really want to increase tensions, that's the way to do it, said Macron.
And the Chinese got to hand it to them.
They know how to deal with this pain in the rear.
What they did is put this next clip on.
They hurt her in her most vulnerable place, which is her pride.
They sent her back home and forced her to walk through the regular terminal with all of the low-life peons who pay her salary.
This is from Ukraine News.
After Ursula lectured China, China throws Ursula into a common passenger line at the airport while leaving China, not through a VIP exit.
The German press noted that the president of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen, faced a real diplomatic humiliation as her ID was checked.
They checked her ID.
I think you're undiplomatic.
Well, speaking of that, do the next one because this is the point that China was making in putting her in her place.
Here, a real humiliation for von der Leyen.
She had to travel in and out of China via a normal airport transit.
She is neither a diplomat nor a head of state.
The Chinese just reminded her of that.
That was classic.
You got to hand it to them, you know.
So I don't think that much good is going to come out of all of this, except it's interesting.
We find it interesting about Macron taking a little different, a little bit more of an independent position, at least speaking out.
But you keep wishing that he'd just look to the other half of it.
Well, maybe you don't have to come up with your thing.
It sounds to me like maybe even philosophically, he might be real close allies with China.
Maybe that's how he wants to get in right there.
Oh, I'll be one of your warriors.
We agree on this Marxism stuff.
Yeah, but what they do is they do a ton of business, and they need that.
We forced them to not trade with Russia.
They need to have someone to trade with.
Maybe the Chinese will teach Macron a little bit about capitalism.
Yeah, that would be ironic, wouldn't it?
Well, I can't resist because after Macron changed his tune on the plane, little Marco Rubio from Florida got really, really mad and he threw a fit and it just played this first, I don't know, 40-some sex, 45 seconds.
Look at Senator Rubio, I shouldn't be that way.
Senator Rubio is very upset about this.
The president of France, Macron, goes to China, spends about six hours meeting with Xi Jinping.
And then on the flight back, he talks to a bunch of reporters.
And here's what he told the reporters.
He told the reporters, number one, that it's time for Europe to break away from the United States, not to depend on the dollar, not to depend so much on us, to become their own third superpower.
The second thing he says, which I found really interesting, was that Europe needs to make sure that they don't get involved in conflicts that are not their conflicts.
Specifically, that Europe should not be picking sides on Taiwan between the United States and China.
And so I think this is a good moment for us to ask Europe, does Macron speak for all of Europe?
Is Macron now the head of Europe?
Is he now the most powerful leader in Europe?
Because if he is, then there's some things we're going to need to change.
Number one, you know, Europe, including France specifically, has depended heavily on the United States for 70 years.
My question is, does the United States speak for Europe?
Europe's Path to Independence00:02:57
Oh, yeah, we do, but we're the good guys.
We run the world.
Exactly.
But that's what we're talking about.
It's the transition.
We're in the middle of the transition, maybe the early stages, but we're losing it.
We're losing it.
And they have to live with reality too.
Besides, the whole concept of having an empire is not a healthy thing to have if you're protecting, if you're interested in personal liberty.
But people who are talking this way, if you'd ask them, they are the most devoted people to the Constitution.
Oh, yeah.
They're utterly devoted to it.
And you could not do it because that would be so unpatriotic.
And maybe one or two of them have been in the military.
And I'll tell you what, being in the military doesn't give you any license to be an expert because a few of them get in there and they don't have any more concern about defending true liberty, which is what we're supposed to be doing.
How arrogant he is.
Macron said, look, we've got to look out for our own interests too.
We can't just follow the U.S.
And he says, what the heck are you talking about?
How dare you look out for your interests?
They think the rest of the world doesn't notice that.
Well, before I close, I do want to mention our main sponsor for this month, of course, which is 4patriots.com.
We're entering hurricane season.
Dr. Paul, I noticed that there was a tropical storm forming in the Gulf the first time in April.
It's very, very rare.
What that means, whether you live here or wherever you live, 4patriots.com can hook you up with a great Patriot Powered Generator 2000X.
The great thing about this generator is that it is not hardwired to your house.
In fact, it's solar powered.
So when you're in a problem, whether it be weather-related or whether the power grid goes down, which we know what the infrastructure is like in the U.S., it's a disaster.
It could be down for months if we have some of these main power generators going down.
You can carry it with you.
You can take it with you.
You can power your fridge.
You don't want your food to go bad.
You can power your medical device.
You have a CPAP.
It helps you sleep.
You can power that.
You can do all these things.
And the great thing about 4Patriots.com is that for our viewers, they're offering a 10% discount on your first order.
You just go to 4patriots.com.
The link is in the description.
Enter Ron in your code and you'll get 10% off.
And as always, free shipping on all orders, $97 above, and a terrific guarantee for your entire year after your order.
So go to the folks at 4patriots.com and hit Ron.
Very good.
Yes.
And I want to do one other thing, by the way, because I've been waiting to show this.
And it's green, so you can't see it.
But anyway, we got a really terrific little gift from our friends at Rumble for being one of their major content creators.
And it was just a nice gesture for them.
We've been happy with our partnership with Rumble.
And they give us this nifty little thing.
It's pretty heavy.
If someone breaks any of it, we could also defend this.
Dictatorship of the Majority00:04:26
They're a better company to work with than that one that we were with previously.
The other one was a little bit grouchy with us.
And not very friendly and didn't follow through with some of the, you know, implying that they would be helpful to us.
Yeah, yeah.
But the market worked.
We found some competition out there.
I'm delighted, you know, that, and this has been always my argument that there are a lot of smart people that should be counteracting the authoritarianism that has drifted with the internet.
And this is a good example of that.
And we're delighted that we're able to work with them.
And it's nice to feel appreciated.
You know, we work hard on the show, and just a little thing like this just makes you feel a lot better.
So I'm done then.
Okay, and I want to just, in a brief summary, we talked about Lindsey Graham.
He wants to commit another generation of people to war and drop bombs on people and do all kinds of things and make sure that we are still the king of the world.
But also, we talked about U.S. warships just going over there, antagonizing and provoking the Chinese.
And I can't think that with these two events going on, I don't think it will be the total tipping point.
The tipping point is when we develop our foreign policy, which has been ongoing for a long time.
But there's sort of periods of time when it gets climactic or dramatically out of control.
And that's about what we're doing.
We have all these things, but there is a division now in Washington where there's people breaking away the traditional thoughts.
There was a time when the progressive left were more anti-war and all Republicans are hawks.
Now we have peace breaking out with some of the Republican in the Congress talking and working even with some of the progressives who have come over to a position of more sense in our policies.
But these events aren't good.
They don't do it, and there's not any value.
The only people who can measure value are the people who get to spend more money on the weapons.
They don't make us safer.
They make us less safe.
And we become more vulnerable because there's too many chances for an unintended consequences or a deliberate act that will make something happen that people will have to act on the leaders of the Congress and get their way and find out that what we want to do is we need troops in Taiwan.
And that'll tell the Chinese something.
That is so unnecessary and so devastating.
It's just not that difficult to understand what non-intervention is all about.
Just mind our own business.
I mean, you can deal with this when you think about your next-door neighbor.
What if there's a next-door neighbor that has a few personal habits you don't like?
But if both people just say, you mind your own business, I'll mind my own business.
And they most of the time can get along real well.
But no, why are we feel so compelled as a nation?
Why do we allow a few people to get up there and become dictators?
Macron was a little upset because the United States dictates to him on how to handle China.
But what do we do as a people?
You know, because in pure democracy, unfortunately, if you just 51%, you can elect these people into Congress and they can do whatever they want.
So we end up with a dictatorship of the majority.
And some people think, oh, that is wonderful.
I don't think so.
I think we're living with the dictatorship of the majority.
All you have to do is have high-paid lobbyists to do the lobbying for war or whatever you want.
And all of a sudden, that majority becomes a threat to us.
And I don't think it's difficult.
I think it's easy to understand.
It's difficult to get the people to shift gears.
I don't believe the majority of the American people agree with all this authoritarian stuff.
I think the majority of the American people believe that we ought to have peace and we ought to follow the Constitution.
But right now, the people who control that scenario are in power over the propaganda of the government and the educational system.
And someday, what we have to do is continue to build that influence, the intellectual and ideological influence, on why peace is so much superior to war.