Biden Bars NY Post From White House - What's He Afraid Of?
According to the New York Post, the nation's oldest newspaper is being barred from attending President Biden't public appearances, including a presser yesterday where a reported 20 seats remained vacant. The Post has been reporting on the various Biden scandals...is this retaliation? Also today: Possible breakthrough in the Assange situation? Finally: Is Congress declaring war on Mexico?
According to the New York Post, the nation's oldest newspaper is being barred from attending President Biden't public appearances, including a presser yesterday where a reported 20 seats remained vacant. The Post has been reporting on the various Biden scandals...is this retaliation? Also today: Possible breakthrough in the Assange situation? Finally: Is Congress declaring war on Mexico?
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to have you here.
Speak up today.
I understand that there's a little rain going on outside and we can hear it.
We are definitely in Texas.
I hope you brought our canoes to work.
If we can predict things from past experiences, it'll go away.
You'll get better.
Let's hope.
The sun will be out later on.
But right now, we will speak up the best we can and present our program.
We'll do our best.
I want to talk today and start off with about the White House.
The White House is not friendly to the New York Post.
And they're not friendly to the First Amendment.
So you combine that together, and they're not even going to allow the New York Post to come to the press conferences and put restrictions on them.
I remember way back, it must have been in the early 80s or in the 70s when CNN was just starting, they were denied any access to anything because there were three majors.
And this was the first time anybody was challenging it.
And I remember going to bat for them because I thought, we need another one.
We need one more.
And I thought later on, I thought, why'd I ever do that?
But anyway, they've been around and this is sort of backtracking.
And once again, it's regulation.
You know, it just seems like it's probably not all that necessary.
You know, people can sort it out.
But what they're going to do by denying it, they're going to sort it out and say, you know, Biden is not really a friend of the First Amendment, which a lot of people already knew.
But there's a few Republicans that aren't very friendly.
And when they talk about things like Assange and other things, and Ed Snowden, we don't get a strong support, you know, from Republican leadership.
So anyway, that's the big thing in the news this morning.
And I think that if I had my ability to advise the president, I would say, cancel that order, allow him to come, live with the truth and the open newspapers and freedom of choice.
But right now, with social media and the whole work, it's pretty hard.
It is hard for all of us.
And I'm sure with our viewers, they find it difficult.
Where does the truth come?
How can we get to the answers?
So we want to continue to do our best to try to find it so that we can pass it on.
Well, the thing is, President Biden rarely faces the press.
I mean, I can't remember.
I mean, I remember my early stage watching Nixon.
He rarely faces the press.
I think probably less than any president has ever done.
And when he does face the press, as we've seen over and over again, it's more tightly scripted than a 1973 meeting of the Soviet Communist Party or something.
Everyone, he gets a printout of who's going to ask him a question, what the question is, how he's supposed to respond.
So the whole thing is very fake.
So the problem for President Biden, and he made a press appearance yesterday, and the New York Post wanted to attend the press appearance and try to ask a question.
Of course, as it turned out, he turned away and walked away without even answering the question.
But the New York Post wanted to be there, and they were told, sorry, there's no spots left.
We can't accommodate you.
And so then they did a little bit of reporting and found that actually there were 20 empty seats, so it wasn't jam-packed or anything.
The problem is that the New York Post, of course, they broke the story of Hunter's laptop, which was falsely claimed to be Russian disinformation.
And they continue to doggedly, they have, I think her name is Miranda Devine.
He's done some great work on the Biden crime family, the crimes that the family is involved in.
So it seems to me like retaliation against a newspaper that's actually just, as you say, Dr. Paul in your opening, doing its job, keeping a watchdog, looking at, you know, they certainly did it when Trump was president, didn't they?
Everything.
Now, this, if it were only for the press conferences, wouldn't be a big deal because you just said he doesn't have very many pressure missing anything except to make fun if they can.
But this is for all public appearances that you have to get press passes.
So it's not a very good example, but I think we've been drifting away, and the country's been drifting away, and our leaders have been drifting away to the point where very few young people going through journalism school these days doesn't.
They don't even get a good introduction of what what First Amendment is, and then they themselves don't know how to defend themselves when there's journalistic restraints and so often they comply too easily.
And then when you mix that up with social media, it is difficult to get to the bottom of things and getting to to the to the real issues.
But we do have friends in journalism that they do provide some good information and we we rely on that quite frequently.
I mean, the role of the fourth estate in a free society is to do the bidding of the people against the power, and that's what it's supposed to do, but it it doesn't, of course.
But let's look at a couple of clips.
This is from Summit NEWS.
Steve Watson did a little piece on what's going on with it.
White House is blocking the NEW YORK POST from attending Biden appearances.
Go to the next one and here's what they wrote about it, basically what I said, there's 20 empty seats on the South Court auditorium at Biden's only public appearance.
Their request was denied.
Well, I think this article by Steve Watson really explains why they were denied, because here's a lengthy quote from the NEW YORK POST.
If we can put the next one up, they don't want this out there.
The White House press office barred the POST from attending President Biden's only daytime public event Monday, as federal prosecutors near a decision on criminally charging first son Hunter Biden for tax fraud and other crimes.
The POST has closely covered the president's ties to his relatives' foreign dealings and first reported in October 2020 on files from Hunter's abandoned laptop the link to Joe Biden to ventures in China and Ukraine, China and Ukraine being important and do the next one.
So at the time Biden, of course, falsely characterized the post reporting as Russian disinformation.
Back at the time, in a Monday email, the White House staff informed the POST we're unable to accommodate your credential request to attend the Investing in Airline Accountability remarks on 5-8.
The remarks will be live streamed and you can view it at Wh.gov.
Thank you for understanding.
We'll let you know if credential becomes available.
Yeah sure, don't hold your breath is, in other words, is what they're saying.
So anyway, we hope there's People alert to this and will engage themselves in trying to understand more clearly what the founders intended, because you know that was a long time ago, but it seemed like they had a much clearer mind about what First Amendments meant than it does today.
Because I think so much of this stuff emanates from our university system.
Why wouldn't the university system depend on all the funding?
So, you know, if they're going to get involved in journalism or medical care or everything, there's a lot of pressure put on individuals to total on.
And because you could be, you have to be careful because if you don't do their bidding, you could be accused of being a terrorist.
You know, that's their tool that they use.
Used to be, oh, you're you lean toward the communism, but now, oh, you're a terrorist, you know, because you want freedom.
You want freedom of people to do what they want?
What kind of a system would that be?
Well, you know, we're not naive, and we know that I'm sure every administration wants to block hostile press.
You know, there's nothing unusual about that.
But I mean, unless I'm hallucinating, I remember especially during the Trump era when his press people, they were just hounded and dogged and beaten to smithereens.
The floor was bloody when they left, you know.
And so the response, trying to, basically, the whole point is if you don't play with us, then you can't play at all.
You know, you can't come, you can't be part of it.
And if you're barred from these things, then you have nothing to write about.
You can't write about it.
So it's very disturbing.
Yeah, I think we have to admit that it's a little more complex than when they had pamphlets and newspapers.
No radio, no TV, no social media and the works.
But it was word of mouth, but they still permitted that.
It became very personal then, but they were not bashful.
You know, the early founders of the country, and they held the principle of freedom of speech in the high esteem.
But I think we've drifted a long way from that.
Disturbing Complexities00:15:21
It's who's the smartest person to lie the best.
You know, it's a champion liar that seems to get the most attention and the most support.
And unfortunately, the most persuasion with the people.
But there's a limit, and I think we're witnessing these last couple years, and we like to talk about it.
When they've reached the limit and the people finally say, enough of this stuff, you know, eventually the people do catch on and say that we've had enough of this.
And I think hopefully that trend continues with this next election.
If nothing else, if that is accomplished, I would think that is very good.
That the people can sense when they're telling lies, and that's not difficult because it's constant.
No kidding.
Well, the next story is a hopeful story.
I said, cautiously optimistic.
It's a very interesting development.
If we can put this next up, now this is from the Sydney Morning Herald.
We're reporting.
President Biden's ambassador to Australia, who happens to be Caroline Kennedy, who happens to be John F. Kennedy's daughter, the late John F. Kennedy's daughter.
She is Biden's ambassador to Australia.
There's been a lot of action on the Assange front over these past couple of weeks.
We've been following it closely.
She took a meeting with a pro-Assange group, friends of Julian Assange, I believe it was, in Australia.
She agreed to meet with them, which is significant because she wouldn't have done that certainly if Biden was against it or if Lincoln was against it or if the foreign policy team was against it.
She met with this pro-Assange, pro-freedom group just in advance of President Biden's trip to Australia.
If you can put this next one up, this is from the article.
The highly sought-after meeting comes at a pivotal moment, just a fortnight before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hosts Joe Biden for his first presidential trip visit to Australia.
And days after opposition leader Peter Dutton significantly shifted his rhetoric on the Assange case.
So you remember, Dr. Paul, we talked about it, I think, maybe not on the show.
The current Prime Minister of Australia said, enough is enough.
This guy, you need to stop this prosecution.
You need to set him free.
Now his opposition in Parliament is saying the same thing.
And so for Kennedy to meet with this group just in advance of, I mean, I hate to read the tea leaves, but it can't be a bad thing.
Well, maybe she's in good with her cousin.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, and obviously, you know, people do know that there's a dissension in the Kennedy family because most of them disapprove of anything that Robert is doing.
And that means that Carolyn, I mean, maybe she's just very independent-minded, but it is good news.
We don't know exactly what it means, but it won't be very easy for Biden to get rid of her.
Yeah, yeah.
That would be pretty bad.
Well, if you think about it, you know, and sort of game this out a little bit from a political perspective, it makes all the sense, not that I'm in the business of helping Biden, but it makes all the sense in the world for him to jump on it right now because everything he's touching is turning not to gold, the opposite of gold.
He's got a war problem.
He's got an economics problem.
But RFK, as you say, the candidate with 20% in the polls against him before things have even started, he said out front, I will not pursue Assange.
I will have him be released.
So go ahead.
No, I was going to say, isn't it pretty impressive that there's that many people who still maintain a mantle condition where they'll look at this?
And this has been around for a long time.
We think that nobody really cares, you know, because the administration and the media, they ignore it.
So I think this is very good.
It would make more and more fun.
Absolutely.
It would make sense because, first of all, okay, say he does this just before or just as he's in Australia for Biden.
A, he heads off RFK.
Oh, you would pardon him?
I already did that.
And then he puts a knife in Trump saying, you had every opportunity in the world.
You said all kinds of nice things about Assange throughout your entire campaign, and you did nothing.
You didn't lift a finger.
Well, here I am.
I'm going to set him free.
I'm for press freedom.
It would be a smart political move right now.
Of course, we would like it for other reasons.
But I don't know.
It seems like things are coming together a little bit.
I think you better be cautious because you're going to be offered a very good job in the administration and in his campaign.
But I'm not worried about that.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I don't know.
But let's, I just want to do one other thing on this before we move on because this is another thing I think that's weighing heavy on the administration because it's very obvious.
If you can skip ahead and go to that next one, U.S. Double Standards on World Press Freedom Day.
Now, the world understands that this is Kevin Gastola.
And, you know, World Press Freedom Day happened just a couple of days ago, and there was a meeting held by UNESCO about world press freedom, and they had a speaker there.
If you can put the next one on, Dr. Agnes Kalmard, Secretary General for Amnesty International, spoke in front of this World Press Freedom event.
She called attention to the double standards of so-called democratic countries while discussing challenges to press freedom.
And here is what Dr. Kalmar said.
It's not just what's happening in Iran or in Russia that we should worry about, although it should worry us a lot.
It's also what's happening here in the U.S., Kalmar said.
Who's imprisoning Julian Assange?
Who's creating more laws to curtail the freedom to protest?
All of those indicators and trends are occurring within the so-called democracies of the world.
So that's a good point.
It's very obvious, very out there.
We hold all of these free press, free democracy, and in the meantime, we're suppressing a journalist.
And I think this is another sign of the weakening of our empire, which we don't cry over, because they're willing to speak out against us.
And there's been other countries asking the questions.
And I think it's becoming very clear that without the United States support for the punishment of Assange, it wouldn't be happening.
I would think that would be, you know, huge, if not everything.
If somebody, if we had a new president that would come out, but like you say, it's been supported by bipartisan, and I think that a lot of Republicans are still saying, oh, boy, we can't do this.
You know, I keep thinking, it's such a stress to punish somebody by breaking one of our laws.
He doesn't even happen to be a U.S. citizen.
Well, why did you come to the United States?
We know you're not a citizen, but here you can get a fair trial and clear your name and get rid of this nonsense.
Yeah.
So how many people believe?
That's, to me, that's sad.
You know, there was a time probably that a person would be in a foreign government.
And it's still, foreign governments are worse than the way you have.
But under these conditions, to leave most of the countries of the world and come here for a fair trial on something like this, it's not going to be very healthy for the individual.
Yeah, we're heading in the wrong direction is obvious.
Well, our last story today is a disturbing one, and I'm happy to report it because it's from within our own website.
And this is our colleague Adam Dick, who wrote a really interesting piece for our Congress Alert section at ronpaulinstitute.org yesterday.
And he was looking closely at this border security bill, and he found something of interest.
And here's the title, House Border Security Bill Provides for a Big Step Toward War in Mexico.
And you first read the headline and say, that's crazy.
We're not going to invade Mexico.
Well, we talked about it on the show, remember, a couple weeks ago, where who was it?
Was it Bolton or someone who said we need to invade Mexico, invade anywhere?
But the point that Adam makes, and we can put this next one on, is that if you look at the text of the bill, which is what we did for you for many, many years on the Hill, the devil is always in the details, literally, right?
And so Adam writes that it's a big step toward the U.S. government going to war in Mexico.
Again, you'd say, that's crazy.
But as Adam points out, section 123 of the 213-page long bill says that, quote, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on whether a Mexican drug cartel described in paragraph two meets the 10 criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization, end quote.
And the bill referenced 11 different, quote, Mexican drug cartels.
Yes.
It is so dangerous.
And I despise the generous use of the word terrorist because that's a code word for just destroying somebody's reputation.
And it is difficult.
So this is just another example of people wanting to aggravate and make things worse between the United States and Mexico.
And both sides have some shortcomings on this.
Mexico doesn't do what they should, and we don't do what we could, could do.
And they play on the drug war and the danger of these horrible drugs, which I share medically.
And yet I have a different political answer to that.
One thing that, you know, because the cartel, you know, they're making all this money, and also drugs are dangerous, so therefore you need the government to protect you.
And what I'm fascinated with is a statistic.
I know this can't be considered the most dangerous drug in the world, but how many people went to prison and how many people were in the mafia and the different groups making billions of dollars with the illegal use of marijuana.
And guess what?
With a little bit of effort by a few people, finally came through and it's essentially legal for everybody.
And which I still think that what my advice is, is I don't think it makes any sense.
But I've always despised the drug war.
The drug war turned out to be worse than the marijuana.
And now, I just read a story the other day.
It said marijuana people are, the growers and the manufacturers, they're unhappy.
They're not making any money.
So it takes the profits away from it.
And they won't do it.
So now, to suggest that, I think there is a libertarian position.
Briefly, I won't speak for all libertarians, but suggesting a different approach.
And one of them would be to make drugs legal like they did in marijuana.
You say, what?
How can you do that?
Well, I remember the time I was in a debate and they were accusing me of legalizing morphine and heroin.
But nobody said, oh, yeah, if it's legal, I'd probably be tempted to use it.
You know, this whole thing.
No, it is dangerous, but we can't expect the government to protect us against all kinds of problems because I might be able to find a few things in our diet that may be killing more people than all the drugs.
You know, when you think about, you know, calories and not enough exercise in a Soviet state, you know, they dictate everything.
But, no, the first thing is, is most libertarians would say, back off on the drug war.
It doesn't work.
You wouldn't have cartels.
Yes, you would still have a drug problem, but you wouldn't have the cartels.
You might have more people spending money on rehabilitation and treating people who are addicted.
But also, you know, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
And we subsidize illegal immigration.
People just walk in.
We treat them like kings.
You know, they get treated better than all Americans and veterans who are looking for some government help.
They get treated better.
They come to the front of the line.
So I think that should be eliminated and prohibited.
And what would you do, though?
We use them.
A lot of them.
And this is why they say business people, you know, want to open borders because they can get cheap labor to come in.
Well, I think the work, I guess, worker program is a good idea.
I think it was a way, I always thought it was a great way to have foreign aid.
Let workers come in, and they did it for years, and they worked.
And what did they do with their money?
They took it home.
And some people say, well, they have to spend their money here.
No, let us spend over there.
What are they going to do?
Put it in a shoebox?
You know, they'll start buying.
So I think it's an assistance program.
But I think that people should consider this, but we're a long way from it because it's much easier to identify them as terrorists and do things stupidly that may end up with a shooting war with Mexico.
You know, it makes no sense.
I think that voluntarism in our programs is a much better way to go.
You're right.
I mean, there are serious implications if Congress were to, if you know, working with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were to designate these groups in Mexico as terrorist organizations, because that would open them up to being targets in the war on terrorism.
It would be no different than ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
So the idea that Mexico is going to sit by, in Obrador, the president of Mexico already said we're not going to permit any foreign government to intervene in our territory, much less that a government's armed forces intervene.
So forget it.
It's out of the question.
You can't come over.
So if we call them terrorists, they're legally terrorists, then they're going to be part of the war on terror and we're going to be bombing Mexico.
John Bolton may be happy, but we're not going to be that awfully happy.
One mistake always leads to two mistakes, two problems, and that's what we have done in our foreign policy.
You know, when you think about it, I bet you we would have spent a lot less money since World War II if we had not had this continuation, expansive foreign policy where we felt like we had to be the world policeman.
And even, I think Bush used to say, we shouldn't be the world policeman.
He knew the right words, but they had no intention of doing that.
World Policeman's Legacy00:02:38
The whole thing is it's designed for us to be the world policeman and the world's dictator, especially the distribution of oil.
So often, if you just look at since World War II, especially, our influence and our desires to be able to control oil.
And it's so ironic.
The market can do so much for the consumer by driving the oil prices down.
And so what do we do?
Just look how we have impeded the use of the marketplace to distribute and sell in an open, fair manner energy between the Russian system and the European system.
So we have to go and blow up pipelines in order to prevent the market from breaking out.
So it is pretty bad.
But, you know, are they just bad people or stupid?
Or did they get a bad education?
Or is there too much pressure by the politician?
And I say, yeah, yes.
All of the above.
Yeah, no kidding.
So it's too bad.
Well, before we close out, I do want to thank our supporter this month, our sponsor this month, and that is 4Patriots.com, a great company that helps you prepare for whatever may happen.
We weren't sure if our power was going to go off earlier today, ArkPaul.
We could have benefited from one of their generators out here out here.
Well, they're supporting the show this month.
They are sponsoring the show this month.
And they want us to talk about a known safety threat that poisons thousands of Americans each year.
And that is carbon monoxide that seeps out of a gas generator.
It can be deadly.
People have died from it.
And it doesn't have to happen that way.
There's a new generation of portable, safe, silent, and 100% fume-free generators.
You're looking at a shiny example right now on your screen, the Patriot Power Generator 2000X.
You can expand it.
You can double the capacity if you wish.
It's available to all Americans, even those who think they might not be able to afford it.
It's a solar generator that doesn't use gas.
So there's no problem with fumes.
And it's not loud like those gas generators.
It's as quiet as a laptop, and it's so lightweight, you can pack it up and take it with you.
You can power your phones, medical devices, or even your refrigerator in a bind.
And right now, you can go to 4patriots.com and use the code RON to get 10% off your first purchase on anything in the store, from generators to food, you name it.
They've got everything.
It's an American company.
California's $800 Billion Solution00:04:33
Everything's put together in the U.S.
The profits partly go to veterans groups.
So go to 4patriots.com and I will put a link in the description.
Get that 10% off by using Ron.
And let's go back to the show.
And I do want to close by saying, Dr. Paul, again, reminding everyone, let's get together on June 9th.
We're going to make sure there's no bad weather and we'll have a nice time.
Ron Paul Institute Conference.
I'll also put a link in the description to get your tickets and find out more about the conference.
Very, very good.
Yeah, I hope to see a lot of our friends out there this year.
And we're looking forward to it.
I'm going to want to close with an update on an important issue because everybody's on pins and needles about it.
A lot of people ignoring it.
But that is the financial arrangements of the state of California.
If you want an example of what pure democracy can lead to, just go to California.
You know, they couldn't pay, like many states during COVID.
They couldn't make some payments.
They didn't have the insurance for unemployment.
So they borrowed from the federal government $18.9 billion.
I bet they borrowed it.
I bet there wasn't a piece of legislation.
I don't think the people in the Congress approved that.
But there's a program there and there's a Federal Reserve there.
So they loaned them that.
And guess what?
A lot of, I think there were 16 or 20 states had to borrow because of the regulations put on them and all the problems.
So they, most of them are paying it back.
California hasn't paid anything back.
And they also have had, a few years ago, had a budget service.
They don't anymore.
This year they have a $22 billion deficit.
And they owe that $89 billion.
And the states are required to pay it back.
That doesn't mean they will.
That doesn't mean that they will just because they're required to.
And also, once they look at these bills that they have to pay, guess what?
They have to pay interest on this.
Guess what?
They probably won't pay it.
Guess what?
They'll probably get more money from some other state.
And more money from the federal government, that means from other states.
So it's a compounded mess, but the governor there of California has a trick up his sleeve.
He's going to solve the problems because it is a mess.
So he's proposing that they raise or plan to spend $800 billion on reparations.
And that's supposed to be helpful for the economy.
Of course, they don't have any money.
They have nothing but debt.
And then they say, well, reparations, just think of all the mean, nasty things that they have done and the slavery that happened in California when they came into the Union.
They came in as a free state.
And right now, who's paying all these bills?
It's not even going to be the Californians because anybody that's wise enough are leaving.
So what are they doing?
They're saying that they demand money.
And they demand money from everybody in California to pay the reparations.
And, you know, that could involve some minorities that would have to pay.
And there's never been slavely legalized slavery in California.
And so pure democracy as a solution to the economic problems and the social problems they have and the manufactured diseases and dangers in the world, like we have to protect ourselves against our national security interests, and that we have to all that military spending.
People have to wake up and realize this is way over the heads of the people in our governments right now.
They're leading to the most vicious bankruptcy that this country and maybe the world has ever seen because you just can't keep doing this.
And when you think that the solution for California might be a new program of $800 billion because they owe $22 billion this year that they don't have and that they borrowed $18 billion for unemployment insurance, but they are going to be back.
They're going to be back to the federal government demanding that the people come up with more money and they will be forced to pay for it.
They will enslave somebody else now for reparations.