Whodunit? Two drones appear to have targeted the Kremlin just hours ago, raising the possibility that US-proxy Ukraine was trying to kill the Russian president. With Russian calls for a devastating response, who could be behind this escalation? Ukraine? Russian false-flag? US covert ops? Also today: Biden sends 1,500 active-duty US troops to the border...but what is their mission? Finally: RFK makes his policy toward Assange very clear.
Whodunit? Two drones appear to have targeted the Kremlin just hours ago, raising the possibility that US-proxy Ukraine was trying to kill the Russian president. With Russian calls for a devastating response, who could be behind this escalation? Ukraine? Russian false-flag? US covert ops? Also today: Biden sends 1,500 active-duty US troops to the border...but what is their mission? Finally: RFK makes his policy toward Assange very clear.
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 on this Wednesday?
Doing well, doing well.
And ready and rearing to go.
Lots of stuff going on.
So let's see if we can relay a little bit of information to our viewers.
Yes.
And lots of solutions, hopefully.
But we can't depend on our government or the FBI or the CIA or anybody else to help the people out, so we'll have to give them our two cents worth.
That's right.
But I want to start off with, you know, what's going on at the border activities there.
There was a report out that Joe Biden, you know, just in one of his expenditures in this not a full term, yeah, he spent over $50 billion on consultant.
And I asked him, I said, what do you think he needs a consultant for?
Oh, well, he doesn't know what he believes in, you know, or something like that.
Anyway, $50 billion.
But the point that the articles makes is that it's three times more than what Trump spent on the wall, the cost of the Trump border.
But who knows?
That would be an endless cost.
But it's a lot more.
And I think the comparison was made to show that they're getting more consultant on things to do wrong rather than doing something that a lot of people in this country thinks it's a benefit.
I'd like to see a wall, but I don't think much of a physical wall because I don't think it'll work and a lot of other reasons.
But this point is important.
But this is important about the money being spent.
But you know, the other thing in the news about the wall is Biden's plan to send 1,500 troops down there.
Now, that gets me worried.
That's not good for the American Republic to seeing what's happening there.
But I guess we'll soon find out about it, whether he gets the money or not.
But it's pretty hard coming up with if it's brand new money.
You know, the budget, I don't think they have the budget balanced yet.
They're still working on that.
Working hard, I'm sure.
So I don't know whether you think the $50 billion, we just should ignore it or we should take up.
No, we can't take up you-know-what.
Take up collections.
Have a big sale.
Well, it is big news.
And if we can put on this first clip, this is just the Wall Street Journal.
Everyone's covering it.
I just picked the Wall Street Journal's article.
Biden to deploy active duty troops to southern border as Title 42 ends.
Now, Title 42 is a measure put into effect by President Trump using the pandemic as a reason to allow people at the border to be turned back, even if they're seeking asylum.
So it's a way of closing the borders in response to COVID.
That is going to sunset next week.
And so the issue, what's going to happen when that sunset, is there going to be a huge, massive push of illegals coming through the border?
What's going to happen?
And so Biden's solution was to send these 1,500 active duty troops down to the border.
Now, the Democrats blasted Trump when he did it.
And now, of course, the Republicans will probably blast Biden.
But it does go back to, I think, George W. Bush, who first put American troops on the border.
You know, but this surge that they're expecting, I don't know how that adds up.
Have they been enforcing Title 42?
Yeah, I don't know.
They haven't been enforcing it anyway.
And there's been no inhibitions in the last two or three years.
It's been an acceleration under Biden.
So I don't know who the new people will be that will surge into the country.
It seems like it's unlimited, but it's still being used as an excuse to spend more money and send troops down there and this sort of thing.
But I don't think it's going to, all it's going to do is cost more money, but not accomplish what has to be done.
Yeah, it does look like it's optics for the most part.
If we can put on that next clip from the Wall Street Journal article, and you brought this to my attention immediately, and that is that they're not going down there to prevent people from crossing the border illegally.
This is the Defense Department sending additional 1,500 troops to the border temporarily for three months to augment customs and border patrol missions there.
According to a U.S. official, the 1,500 will fill areas of the mission that have gaps, including ground-based detection and monitoring, data entry, and warehouse support.
And if you go to the next one, just to continue on that thought, Dr. Paul, military personnel aren't allowed to act as law enforcement on American soil.
So they can't directly perform arrest of migrants.
Instead, they will help with some of the administrative tasks, such as helping process migrants who ask for asylum to receive dates in an immigration court.
In other words, as you put it to me, they're there to facilitate.
There you go.
Facilitate.
But, you know, it's so absurd, but you can't get shocked.
You can't be totally surprised.
You can be more annoyed than ever, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But I think that, you know, the one thing I said one time in a debate, which, you know, annoyed a few people, was, you know, fences aren't the best symbol for a libertarian society.
I know you have to defend the homeland.
You have to have a right to defend your own house.
And I think our homeland is something similar to our house, and that's the type of protection that we should have.
But fences so often, in our lifetime, they've been used to keep people from leaving the country.
And there's a little bit of that going on in this country now.
The government pays close attention and would like, and I think a lot of this movement for even more financial control and cryptocurrencies that government owns, all these things, is to watch out that people don't get disgusted and take their wealth with them.
And so the governments have an interest in trying to prevent that.
But they prevent the military from being military.
They're going to help more people come in.
But what they deny even discussing is who should be more involved in it.
And I think we can't have a policeman in front of everybody's house.
That's the impossible.
You can't make people perfectly safe.
But, you know, some people take care of that themselves.
And that's the Second Amendment.
You know, people know, especially the more rural area you get, the more you know there's a gun on the other side of the door, especially in Texas.
So there's a citizen approach.
But now, even, you know, just think how much property is crossed, how many private properties, the ranches and things that are crossed.
But they become the criminal if they try to prevent the trespassing.
So that's not even entertained as a possibility.
But, you know, I think at least they assume that if somebody comes up our driveway and they decide they want to come in, they just open up the door and walk in.
Everybody knows that's trespassing.
But as long as the government does it in a national sense, you're no longer a home.
The homeland feature has been changed.
And a lot of people have argued this case.
Once you have open immigration, you no longer have a homeland.
And there's very little the government should be involved in.
But one should be the protection of property, not the universal use of property by individuals.
It's called collective ownership.
That doesn't work.
That's what we end up with now.
Collectivism at the borders and all this crazy nonsense that's going on.
And you know, the one thing that might arouse the people, because I've seen it on some of the station, is the number of people who have committed vicious crimes, been in and out of arrest.
They don't stay in prison.
And then they end up murdering 10 people.
And that is, that's aggravating people.
And remember, in the COVID thing, the one thing that people hated is if we could find an example of a person that was a super hawk on everybody wearing that mask and take your shots and all that, and they weren't following the rules themselves.
That aggravated a lot of people.
And this is aggravation, too, to people who think their homeland should be protected.
Well, we'll see what happens.
You know, we've talked about the military missing its recruiting roles, and we were actually going to do an update on that today, but we put it off because of those other things I think are more important.
But they can't meet their goals.
They're having problems filling it out.
Yet they're going to go ahead and send 1,500 active duty members over there to basically do paperwork on the border.
And maybe it's just so it looks good.
They'll have some CNN.
We'll show some soldiers there.
Biden will be able to say there's not a single illegal coming over.
I think his spokesperson said that.
One other thing that I wanted to add on the immigration thing is I think there is a rule, a very powerful rule, that if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
And that is what we do at the border.
We subsidize illegal, easy entry, and then we take care of people, which, you know, there is a Christian responsibility to help people in need and this sort of thing.
But that's not what's going on.
It's this whole thing that they not only move in easily, they move in front of all the lines.
And that is a little bit annoying.
And people will find examples, you know, that, you know, the military personnel have been promised certain things and they don't end up getting it and they're in the back of the line, can't get their medical care.
But these people get very special attention.
And I don't know, I don't think it's Christian love that motivates those people because it just doesn't add up, you know, that way.
It adds up to taking something from somebody else illegally.
So we have to stop subsidizing illegal activity.
And that's the old rule is if you and I can't do anything by going into somebody's house and robbing.
Why in the world do we allow our government to endlessly do that?
Take and steal and rob and regulate for the benefit of somebody else.
That's where the deep flaw is.
And they get their Democrat voting cards too, so don't forget that part.
Well, the second thing we're going to look at today is big news, and it only happened a couple hours ago.
And in fact, if we can queue up that video, actually, it's very short.
It's only nine seconds long, but this will tell you exactly what we're talking about.
if we can full screen that and watch this happening.
This is pretty dramatic stuff.
And there is a attack drone, that's That's it.
It's done.
There's an attack drone.
Two of them reportedly that flew over the Kremlin near Putin's quarters, where he, I guess, normally sleeps.
He wasn't there, I guess, at the time.
And they were blown up before they were able to do much damage.
This is the first time, I believe, since 1942 that any bomb hit anywhere near in the Kremlin.
I think that was the Nazis that did a Hail Mary Pass and hit something in the Kremlin back then.
So it's symbolically very important.
The Ukrainians say, don't look at us.
We didn't do it.
We had nothing to do with it.
There's nothing to see here.
And we don't know if they're right or wrong.
We don't know who was behind it.
It certainly could be Ukraine.
What would be the advantage?
Well, they could show: look, you are more vulnerable than you think.
And, you know, we can hit you where you sleep.
That's a big deal.
Why might the Russians do it?
Well, they don't have lagging support for the war, but nevertheless, if you want to get the people really worked up, it could be that.
Could be anything.
Could be, you know, the U.S. Secret Services somewhere.
You know, covert operation.
We blew up the pipeline.
You know, I wouldn't put anything past the Biden administration to gin things up.
You know, obviously the counteroffensive hasn't started.
It's supposed to start.
Blinken is screaming at Zelensky, get this thing started.
Zelensky's military people are saying we don't have any weapons, we can't do it.
So it's a mess.
We don't know who did it, but it is, I think, a very, very significant event.
Anybody who wants to continue the war and expand the war for their own, you know, selfish reasons, Iran might have a motivation to be involved too.
And, you know, the principle has been around for a long time: governments assassinating other officials.
And the United States, believe it or not, have sometimes been involved in doing that.
I was disgusted with what happened in the last administration when Soleimani was murdered.
Some argued he was sort of on a peace mission.
He wasn't in a military uniform and all.
And he was in Iraq when he was killed by the American.
And then the foolishness of in the 60s when Diem was assassinated.
Assassination sound like solutions, but the motivation might be to do exactly what they do, aggravate.
Because one thing that the evidence shows is killing an individual usually inspires the supporters of that individual, and it really backsfires on them.
And that to me, I think, should make people calm down.
But we shouldn't be involved.
I mean, if you're a non-interventionist country and we're not there aggravating things and participating or urging NATO to really take on Russia, that's a different story.
So we have some moral responsibility for that.
Yeah, and it is a real who done it.
I mean, there are cracks in relations between Washington and Kiev.
There was a political piece, I think, that said that Kiev is no longer sharing its most closely held intelligence with the U.S. because of the Pentagon leaks.
It doesn't trust the U.S. to not, for whatever, I mean, if you believe the story, it doesn't trust the U.S. to keep these.
We have pressure, as I said, from the Biden administration.
Kiev's Intelligence Shift00:05:35
This counteroffensive needs to happen now.
You need to do it now.
And they say we don't have the weapons for it.
So there are cracks in this.
We haven't seen Olaf Schultz, the German chancellor, for a long time.
He seems to be in hiding.
But one of the things he did come out of his closet and say is that we have made an ironclad rule that none of the weapons we give Ukraine can be used to hit targets inside Russia because that would be an escalation, as you say, escalation.
Big escalation.
But let's look, now this is a zero-hedge piece.
There are plenty of other pieces written about it.
Twitter is alight with these stories.
But Russian MP says, time to launch missile attack on Zelensky's residence after Putin targeted.
And one of the reasons, this is Vyacheslav Volodynam.
He's a chairman of Russia's lower house of parliament.
So he's not just some backbencher.
He's a guy who's in a leadership position.
One of the reasons I put this up, Dr. Paul, and the next one, if you can go to that next one, is a very prominent Russian MP, Mikhail Sheremet.
And he said, it's time to launch a missile attack on Zelensky's residence.
So these two MPs, very high ranking.
One is from, I think, the president's party, and the other is from a different political party.
One of the reasons I did put this up is for people who don't understand our regime change policy toward Putin, taking Putin out does not necessarily mean you're going to have a cuddly leader come in.
Because in fact, whether you believe it or not, Putin is actually the moderate in Russian politics.
The people who are in the parliament, by and large, whether they're communists, whether they're Putin's own party, they're much more hawkish.
They're furious with Putin, not because he started this war, but because they don't think he's prosecuting it as aggressively as they think.
So this is just another example of how the people who are in the government are much more hawkish than Putin is.
And behind the scenes, you also have the people who profit from a continuous war.
And maybe that group was concerned that this war may die down.
Maybe the orders won't come in.
And there's emphasis, at least publicity, about us running out of money.
How can we run out of money when we create it out of thin air?
But anyway, it's a big argument, but it's used that for a political weapon.
We're running out of money.
And then they thought, you know, if you don't do what we tell you, the Republicans will never send you a social security check.
They use that as the argument.
Of course, my argument is both parties will send the checks.
The checks just won't buy very much anymore.
That's where the real problem is.
Well, also in the U.S., we are seeing an administration that has bit off more than it could chew.
They basically put their coffee in the microwave for 10 minutes and took a big gulp.
This is the situation they're in.
This started in 2014.
Even Jen Soltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, said this started in 2014.
He was being uncharacteristically honest.
But it started by the same people who are now involved in it, who are now prosecuting this.
Blinken was heavily involved.
Jake Sullivan was heavily involved.
All of the other players, Wallander, Celeste Wallander was very involved.
So all of these people, all of these players were involved in 2014.
They're involved now.
They thought they were going to dethrone Putin.
And in reality, they've bitten off a terrible, terrible war that they're not doing well in.
And if we can put on that next clip, because this is from the same article, and you would say, well, what might be some of the evidence that Ukraine might have tried to do this?
And this is from an article, I think, in the New York Times reporting on the Washington Post report about these Pentagon leaks.
And this is something that came out a while ago.
Last month, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. had secretly monitored discussions among Ukrainian officials about possible attacks against Moscow, time to coincide with the February 24th anniversary of the Russian invasion.
The White House feared that such a move would provoke an aggressive response from Moscow, etc., etc.
So they were worried back then.
But what do we have coming up?
We have a major Russian holiday coming up in just a few days, and that's on May 9th, the Victory Day celebration.
They have a big parade scheduled.
They have a lot of foreign dignitaries.
Disrupting that would be a huge, at least propaganda coup for Kiev.
So if you put those two together, it does suggest that Ukraine may have been involved in this.
Right.
And even those who think they're in the planning mode, their plans are rarely worked out exactly as they think they should be worked out.
They keep doing it, though, and the whole issue has been around a long time.
And I think that it's likely that we'll talk about that issue again one day.
Yeah, we'll keep an eye on it.
Now, Ian Bremer, he's an analyst.
He's very mainstream.
I don't often agree with him, but he's not hyper-partisan, right?
So he's a fairly reasonable person in a way within the whole sort of foreign policy community.
But he has a couple of good tweets, and this is from the Hedge article, did embed these, if we can put that up.
And I think he makes some good points, and I think it's worth speculating on what he comes up with.
And here's Ian Bremer.
I think he's at the Eurasia Institute or something.
He says, it's obviously not an effort to kill the Russian president.
Either one, it's a Ukrainian demonstration to show they can and will strike Moscow, or number two, a Russian false flag to rally the population and justify ramped up strikes on Kiev.
And then he follows up by saying, I suspect it's the Ukrainians.
It's too embarrassing for the Kremlin to display that Ukraine can pinpoint a small but obviously symbolic, ineffective explosion.
Craig's Gas Generator Solution00:02:12
I think that probably is reasonable.
We don't know exactly.
You'd think that the Ukrainians would own up and said, yeah, we did that.
We're going to come back again.
But they haven't.
So I guess it just has to stay, for now at least, a mystery, Dr. Paul.
You know, we'll see.
Well, I do want to, before we go on to our last segment, I do want to talk about our sponsor, and that's 4patriots.com.
They're our sponsor for May.
They help us put the show together and keep the show on air, and we appreciate them.
And they're talking about a government warning of a known safety threat that poisons thousands of Americans every year.
And they tell the story and they have a link to it.
Craig didn't know his wife and kids were going to die that night.
He tried to do the right thing during Hurricane Ida.
He bought a gas generator and fired it up, as many of us do.
But during the night, deadly carbon monoxide seeped out of the gas generator and into Craig's home.
It poisoned his wife and children in their sleep.
The sad part, Craig isn't alone.
What's even worse, Craig's tragedy did not have to happen at all.
Thanks to a new generation of portable, safe, silent, and 100% fume-free generators.
That's now available to all Americans, even those who don't think they'd be able to afford it.
And you're looking at now the Patriot Power Generator 2000X.
It's a solar generator that doesn't use gas, so it doesn't have fumes.
Instead of being loud, it's quiet as a laptop.
It's so lightweight, you can take it with you.
You can even use it inside.
But it's powerful enough for your phones, medical devices, even your refrigerator.
And you'll see there's a picture of a fridge.
You can run it.
You can run your fridge with it.
You can amp it up and get more power.
You can get more units for it.
But right now you can go to 4patriots.com and use the code RON to get 10% off your first purchase.
Save even more money.
Get yourself a good generator.
It's not going to poison you.
That's not going to cause you problems.
Just go to 4Patriots.com and use the code RON to get 10% off.
We will add a link in the description.
And of course, you're free shipping with all orders, $97 and above.
Now, Dr. Paul, we want to talk about someone who is exciting us a little bit here, and that's Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert's Bold Stand00:05:36
He came out with some statements yesterday that were pretty good.
Yeah, see, he hasn't disappointed us.
And, you know, I think he's doing quite well politically when he has so many enemies.
One of the saddest parts of all this is, you know, his family doesn't even come close to supporting him.
That's weird.
And when you think of it, Jack Kennedy, when he was president before he was president, was always good, but he was not, he always knew he couldn't go too fast, too quickly, and he even in his speeches had to cover his bases about being more hawkish than he really was.
But Robert is bold.
He stated, and I think what I really like about him is he points out the thing that I consider a major danger, and that is the corporatism leading toward fascism.
And he, of course, does that both on the military and the pharmaceuticals and control of medicine.
So that's all been very beneficial.
So I think this thing of talking about Julian Assange is fantastic.
And I think he made a comparison that we shouldn't be doing that.
That's more like what the Soviet system was like.
And so he is an individual.
I think he sincerely believes what he's saying.
That's why I think his numbers are going to increase.
And he's the only candidate who's explicitly made part of his promises to pardon Assange.
Let's look at this tweet that he put out yesterday afternoon.
Very, very good statement.
Very, very clear and bold.
If we can, there we go.
Instead of championing free speech, the U.S. actively persecutes journalists and whistleblowers.
I will pardon brave truth tellers like Julian Assange and investigate the corruption and crimes they exposed.
This isn't the Soviet Union.
The America I love doesn't imprison dissidents.
And he followed up with the next one.
And we know some of these people because they've spoken at our conference.
If we can put that next one up.
Other brave truth tellers include John Kiriaku, who spoke at our conference, Chelsea Manning, reality winner, Daniel Hill, Thomas Drake, who spoke at our conference, Jeffrey Sterling, and Edward Snowden.
They were trying to return America to its democratic and humanitarian ideals.
Very good, straightforward, and bold statement, in my opinion.
Yes, and the great thing about this is it fits into my desire of building on a coalition.
Not a coalition of left-wingers and right-wingers who wheel and deal and sacrifice a little bit of what they believe in to bring people together.
But they come together, and we had that experience while I was in Washington.
People, we could join together because we both agreed on the war issue and civil liberties.
That shouldn't be such a giant leap.
But that is a big deal for some people.
Oh, you don't care about your country.
You're unpatriotic.
And just think of the harm done by you advertising saying vaccines could be dangerous.
We shouldn't have one person making a decision and you should have discussion.
All of that stick is, I think, so important.
But I think Robert understands this in the connection between corporatism and corporations and the benefits.
You know, it is so dangerous.
And I think we see it today.
I think there was one comment in the news about the FBI participating once again with our government and undermining civil liberties.
And yet at the next moment, you'll hear on television, well, there was a problem, there's a problem.
I think we need the FBI to investigate this.
And I keep thinking, you know, it sounds good, and most people will listen to it, but it just sort of gives support to the people that actually think the FBI is on their side and that they will really investigate.
Well, is he a Biden supporter?
Oh, he once said something half-decent about Trump.
He doesn't deserve.
He's lost his constitutional rights.
I heard one person, are you?
You lose your rights when you do things like Trump.
It's pretty bad.
It's crazy.
Well, contrast a very clear statement from RFK Jr. to what Biden said at the White House Correspondence Dinner.
He's big.
He wants to protect journalists.
Let's look what he says.
This is from our friends over at antiwar.com.
Biden says journalism is not a crime as he seeks Assange's extradition.
Good headline by the folks over there at anti-war.
That's exactly it.
I mean, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.
He was talking about this Wall Street Journal correspondent, Evan Gerskovich, and we don't know all of the details about it, but he was arrested by Russia.
He was reportedly he was trying to get intelligence information on Russian tank production.
We don't know exactly what happened, but he's using him as sort of a cause celeb.
And meanwhile, the 800-pound elephant in the room is Jordan Assange.
If journalism isn't a crime, why are you seeking to put him in prison for 175 years?
So anyway, there's a good touch of hypocrisy.
And just one other thing on RFK, there's a blackout, he's not getting the news coverage you'd think he'd get.
And he's still at 20% against Biden.
I tell you what, I would pay popcorn stock would go through the roof if they actually had a debate between him and Biden.
Federal Reserve's Interest Rate Decision00:03:38
I mean, that would be something.
No chance.
No chance.
No chance of it.
Zero, zero, unless they give Biden his happy pills.
Anyway, I'm going to close out by thanking all of our viewers for watching the show today.
You can help the Ron Paul Liberty Report without writing a check, although we would not mind if you wrote a check to help us out, but simply by hitting like, hitting subscribe, and type in a comment.
Say something you thought that might have been interesting or something you disagreed with.
Keeping those comments section lively and active and keeping people liking the show helps boost us up and helps boost our numbers.
So that's a way to help us without costing you a penny, and we definitely appreciate it.
Dr. Paul?
Very good.
And as many people know and appreciate the fact that there's an important meeting going on dealing with a subject not directly related to this, but certainly indirectly it is.
And that is the Federal Reserve is meeting today.
They're six weeks meeting.
And this afternoon they're going to report what they're going to do with the interest rate, as if they know what the best interest rate is.
That's the biggest joke in the world.
And now the goal by the Federal Reserve is to have 2% inflation rate of prices, CPI up to 2%.
They wanted when interest rates and prices were down too low, they were saying, we've got to get the cost of living going up to 2%.
That means we want to destroy your money at that rate.
Now they're destroying the money at 8 or 10% because they don't tell you the truth about it, but they're working hard to get back to this target.
So all the financial markets are pins and needle waiting.
Everybody thinks they know the answer, that they're going to raise interest rates again to solve the problems that they've created by raising interest by 0.25, a quarter point.
And they don't know any more than a man in the moon what that interest rate should be.
But the only thing that would get exciting is if they didn't do it at 0.25, and yet the markets have discounted out and believe in it.
But if they didn't raise it, that would send a signal.
If they raise it more than that, that would send another signal, and it will be a wild shifting.
But that is to be expected when you are working with a monetary system which is the biggest in the history of the world.
And it is a fiat currency, no relationship to any commodity, and we're in charge of it.
And few people get together and decide what's good and bad about it.
And yet the one thing is, it's created for the benefit of the very rich because they get bailed out, and that's what they're doing.
Just Like they mail out all the big banks and pass on the cost to the little guy who gets the ill effects of the inflation.
Prices go up.
So the middle class and the poor suffer all the consequences.
But it's a big deal.
I think it comes out at 1:30 Central Time, and they're going to tell us: Are we going to stand firm on 0.25 or will we raise it more than they think or will lower it more than they think?
Who knows?
But it's all fake, but it's real in that things happen in the marketplace.
Things will change.
And even though it doesn't make sense, there's a lot of people, even the people who know better and know this is a gimmick, they have to still anticipate what the government's doing.
In a free society with sound money, you don't have a Federal Reserve, and they don't have this power of control, and they don't have the authority to finance the welfare warfare state.
Something we should eliminate.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.