Biden Crime Family? House Releases Explosive New Report!
The US House Committee on Oversight has released a 36 page report detailing what the Republican majority claims is a history of Biden family illegal and unethical dealings over the years, accounting for millions of dollars going into the family bank accounts. Mainstream media has largely ignored today's press conference on the report. Also today: E-verify is coming for your privacy. And: Biden Admin pledges more billions to Ukraine...even if the much-hyped "counter-offensive" fizzles!
The US House Committee on Oversight has released a 36 page report detailing what the Republican majority claims is a history of Biden family illegal and unethical dealings over the years, accounting for millions of dollars going into the family bank accounts. Mainstream media has largely ignored today's press conference on the report. Also today: E-verify is coming for your privacy. And: Biden Admin pledges more billions to Ukraine...even if the much-hyped "counter-offensive" fizzles!
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Wednesday, Wednesday.
How are you, Dr. Paul?
Doing well, doing well.
Hopefully better than the Biden family.
Yeah.
I wonder if they're worried.
But we should never pick on a family.
You know, families are important, but we're as we talk about somebody who's in public office, and it is of value to us to know what's going on because people, citizens, have a consequence of what these guys do.
Anyway, we want to talk about some of the news that came out on Biden.
And, you know, it's been revealed that he and his family have been involved in corruption and illegal gain of funds.
I don't know if that could be possible, but, you know, all things are possible.
And I guess they're out there.
The Republicans are rounding up the usual suspects and finding out what's really going on.
But there's other things going on, too, today.
Santos was arrested, and there were other things and the Biden issue has been going on.
So we'll try and dissect this out, but I can't believe much good is going to come from the little bit of information I have.
But you just wonder, so this is not brand new.
This is stuff that's been going on.
The incident they talked about today had to do when he was vice president.
What is he doing since then?
Is he clean ever since then?
But I guess when you have the power of the presidency, you can accomplish a lot of things.
But it is discouraging, and it's no wonder that some people just like to stay away from politics because it's so disgusting.
But it looks like the family was involved, and they set up a lot of companies that were supposed to, I think they had more than $10 million in these special companies.
Each person had an account and it had special taxing structure.
And then I keep wondering, when it mentioned, it's done for taxes.
The taxes have to be reported when you have these special structures.
But it does raise question.
It will be ironic because sometimes some of the worst criminals confess, but they get held for taxes.
That sends a message.
Don't mess up with your taxes.
I have no idea what's going to happen here.
But he certainly got in the news.
And I don't think it would raise his poll numbers.
I don't think this is going to help Biden, but he's still in the race.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, it is fascinating.
Put this first one up because the House Oversight Committee just released a report today, and that's the big news.
And we should emphasize that we have not studied this report in its entirety.
We cannot speak to the veracity of each one of these claims that they make.
And of course, it is a Republican majority on the committee.
So there is some incentive for them to point these things out.
Nevertheless, if you just look at the Bill of Particulars, it certainly has a smell about it.
Smells about as fresh as the air where Biden is in Delaware.
If you can go back to that beginning, that first one, please, we had a problem with that.
There we go.
So Biden family tried to hide over $10 million in foreign payments, claims the House GOP.
Now, when I saw that, Dr. Paul, I was a little disappointed because $10 million kind of seems like small potatoes.
But maybe that's the tip of the iceberg.
But here's a summary according to Zero Hedge, which I think is a pretty fair beginning of what they found.
The Biden family received and tried to hide over $10 million in payments from foreign nationals.
A previously undisclosed million dollars in Romanian-linked payments.
That's pretty weird.
Ties to Romanian influence peddling.
A web of 20 limited liability companies created while Biden was vice president with a complicated corporate structure.
At least 15 of those LLCs were formed after he became VP in 09, several of which were co-owned or co-owned by Hunter, you know, that notoriously brilliant businessman and painter and author and role model for millions of Americans.
Anyway, I'm just joking.
These LLCs accepted payments ranging from $5,000 to $3 million.
The committee wants to know what legitimate business the Biden family was in.
Now, that's the real question.
So you set up all these companies around your family while you're vice president.
You're doing millions of dollars worth of business.
So the question is, are you buying and selling something?
What is the product?
What are you making?
What are you creating?
What's going on?
That's probably a legitimate question.
How did you earn these $10 millions of dollars?
This is going to put the president in a little bit of the bind because the evidence looks like it's accumulating.
And he's going to have a hard time because he's, he, like a father ordinarily does, they can't stand, you know, to see a child, a son, in trouble.
So he has declared that Hunter is the smartest man he ever met.
And a great businessman.
Well, he was in Washington, so that could be true.
Smartest man in the administration.
Now, it's a sad story, but it's a consequence of corruption.
The whole process, 98% of everything they do up there does not fit into the category of, oh, let's check it out, see if it's in Article 1, Section 8.
Do you think we have permission to do this?
And all this nonsense.
And you talk about how, well, could this have anything to do with inflation and banking system?
The interventionist foreign policy we have, the military-industrial complex.
Who knows what it could involve?
But I'll tell you what, if we had a true republic, this kind of nonsense wouldn't be going on.
Yeah, that's for sure.
Well, what is interesting about this, and just having glanced through it, and I did a word search because I was curious.
And I think this will give you a sense of a bit of partisanship on the Republican side here, is that there are tons of references to China because that's the bogeyman of the day.
But there were only two short references to Ukraine.
And this whole thing started, I think, when the laptop came out before the election.
And we knew even before that that somehow Hunter Biden was on the board of Barisma, which is some gas company in Ukraine making 50, 80 grand a month.
There wasn't very much about Ukraine because the Republicans like backing Ukraine with some exceptions, but there's a lot about China.
But here is the little bit about Romania.
And now, again, this is not big bucks.
However, the timing is really interesting.
If we can skip ahead to that one that just has two paragraphs.
Now this is a summary that Jonathan Turley did.
And everyone is sort of acting quickly with the information that just got out.
If we can do that one that say during this period, if we can call that one up, and this is Turley's point.
And again, as an attorney, as a lawyer, as a constitutional law specialist, he understands that a lot of it is about when things happen.
So here's what Turley said, a couple of tweets.
During this period, Biden, in May 2014, was speaking about corruption in Romania.
And then in September of 2015, a little over a year later, Biden welcomed the Romanian president to Washington.
Oh, must have fixed the problem.
Then five weeks after that, money flowed to the Biden Associates through multiple accounts.
Haley Biden received some of this money as well.
The $3 million payment from Romania is clearly a focus of the committee, writes Turley.
Armstrong saying that Romanian payments follow a pattern with the Chinese payments.
Biden comes over there and says, you guys are all corrupt.
You're terrible, this and that.
A little bit later, he says, hey, you guys are all right now.
And then the money starts flowing.
Maybe they've just developed a casual, honest friendship.
And they visit on occasion.
Now, that is obviously a huge mess, but I think it's going to linger for a while.
And if indeed this was going on when Biden was vice president, just became vice president, and was wheeling and dealing.
My guess is that there's been a lot in between between those days and what's going on now.
I think it's persistent, and that's the way Washington operates.
But sometimes they are too smart on how they hide these things, all this stuff.
It's greedy.
They have information.
But they did pull something off.
The briefcase is an interesting story.
Briefcase, Hunter's briefcase, all this information.
And they were able to, with all this evidence, they were able to get 51 top people in our security department.
You also practically swear on a note.
Oh, this is all Russia's fault.
And then they find out a lot of people said, you know, if I'd have known that, I don't think I'd have voted for this guy.
That is such a shame.
But it's sort of amazing how they get away with it.
But it's a combination of a corrupt society.
It's amazing by the Justice Department that goes on, and they are able to do it.
And I think the political system, just the elections that we're engaged in, and I have had a little bit of experience there.
And there's a lot of cheating goes on.
And the whole thing is, you know, today, if you say, I want a recon, I think we've been robbed.
Oh, you're a terrorist.
You're a terrorist.
We're going to get you for this.
Yeah.
We remember, I think we showed it on this show a while ago, I'm sure, but, you know, the corruption in Ukraine where you had this, Biden was bragging at some event saying, I told that Ukrainian prosecutor that, you know, Ukrainian president, you fire that prosecutor.
You're not getting this billion dollars.
I mean, he openly joked about it.
That was a prosecutor that was investigating his own son.
So we do know a lot of this is going on.
It happened.
And he got rid of him.
Remember, he said, well, son of a gun, he fired him.
But anyway, I'm going to show this is the memorandum from the committee.
If you can look at it, if you do that next one.
So this is the U.S. Congress Committee on Oversight and Accountability, majority members.
And this is the, if we can go to the next one, just to give you a sense of what this is like a 39-page document.
It has a summary.
It goes into detail of certain aspects, basically stuff that we've covered already.
If you go to the next one, I think there is something.
The one mention of Ukraine is interesting.
On October 22nd, 2020, and this would be heavy into the campaign, Biden, then a presidential nominee, stood before the American people in a televised presidential debate and answered a question about whether there was anything inappropriate or unethical about his son's business dealings in Ukraine or China.
President Biden denied that his son or anybody else from the family received money from China and stated, quote, my son has not made money in terms of this thing about what you are talking about China.
I've not had.
The only guy who made money from China is the big guy, is this guy, Donald Trump?
He's the only one.
No one else has made money from China.
So, you know, these claims might be undermined by some of the stuff they are discovering.
The coverage is obviously done on purpose, you know, and in the middle of campaigns and stuff goes on.
And what about Santos getting arrested today?
Our favorite member of Congress.
Our second favorite member of Congress.
You know, you wonder about that because everybody knows what he's been up to and what he's been doing.
But it may be a distraction.
You know.
We look at Drudge, the headline to Santos.
Rhetoric Has Changed00:15:44
Nothing about Biden.
So some of the other things about the corruption, no, but there's nothing new about Santos in a way.
I mean, what can be new, and it's not, I don't believe it's a coincidence that that happened.
Nothing like that and reporting of media events and the politicization of it all.
It's usually not a coincidence.
It's strategy and we've done research.
We know what to do.
But sometimes they get caught in a bad deal.
And unfortunately, the people, if they were more alert, and they're not, is the people could stand up to and change their tune, which we've witnessed here.
They've changed their tune and understanding of COVID and all.
But it is tough to compete with the amount of money and power and control of the media, the control of the government that they have for people just because they know the truth.
They can cancel people who are telling the truth.
I mean, if you're a good journalist, all of a sudden you might not get the credibility you deserve.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, the other thing, if we can go to this, now, you can condemn this as a, and I'm sure the Democrats, some will try to do this, a partisan Republican attack on Biden.
And that might be the case.
But I would suggest just a couple of numbers that I dug up.
There may be some Democrats who aren't unhappy to see some of this stuff come out about Biden.
And let's go to the next one because I just looked up Gallup's survey of Joe Biden's presidential job approval ratings.
He is at 37%, the lowest point in his presidency.
His highest was 57 when he first took office in 2021.
But it is extremely low.
And to put that in perspective, we can put the next one up.
This is other presidents in the April month.
Now remember, Biden is at 37.
And you look down the list.
Trump 46, Obama 44.
George W. Bush, 70.
Bill Clinton, 48.
George Herbert Walker, 79.
Reagan is down there low at 42.
But look at Carter in April of 79 at 40.
And he got wiped off the map by Reagan in 80.
And you see Biden below that.
And if you look at the next one, this is my next exhibit in my suggestion that some Democrats aren't going to be unhappy if Biden goes down over this.
Most Democrats don't want Biden to run again, poll finds, but they'll probably vote for him anyway.
So it's an AP Nork poll suggesting that most Democrats even don't want him to run again.
You know, I think that there's a good chance what you're saying is exactly right.
But you know, that's no easy task to deal with, mainly because they might find something.
The Republicans were a little shrewder back Dealing with Nixon.
They didn't want Agnew, and they had to get rid of him first.
And that was a neat little trick.
Before you knew it, he was a really bad guy.
So he had to resign.
And then they get rid of the president, you know, get rid of Nixon.
But here, if they get rid of Biden right now or damage him and he still runs, what we're dealing with is this whole thing of Kamala Harris.
Yeah, yeah, you mentioned that before the show.
She is a menace.
But sometimes I think the Republicans, you know, fairly, could use a fairly just show pictures for credibility.
You know, of course, that's done with Trump, too.
That's how they try to destroy him.
Except they overkill.
After you impeach a guy twice and you never get one vote.
See, an impeachment should be, you know, just out of common sense, should be supported by both parties, at least to a degree.
To a degree.
But that is so blatantly partisan.
And other times, it would have gone by.
But they were able to do this.
And yet, Trump gets, he benefits by it.
When is another, when is it?
Oh, that was yesterday.
He probably raised some money last night because they lose all credibility.
They overkill, and yet there's probably a lot of problems there that they could deal with.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I mean, that might be Biden's best insurance policy: the fact that Kamala Harris may step in if he doesn't go.
I mean, if he doesn't run, because you suggested it before the show, and I'm going to say it out loud, but all the Republicans would need to do was put in like a 30-second clip of her talking about anything, literally, and they say, Are you tired of this?
And then Biden bumbling put the two of them together, and you'll have who knows what.
Anyway, I guess we should move on.
This is kind of a heads up on legislation.
If we could do the next one, this is thanks to our friend Ryan McMacon over at the Mises Institute.
This is from Mises Wire.
The new immigration bill is a Trojan horse for E-Verify and is a threat to all Americans.
Now, you've been writing about E-Verify for years and years, warning people about it.
And it looks like it's reared its head again.
You know, it was early on because the bill, the original bill on that that came up was in 1997, and that was the year I went back to Congress.
I got rested up.
I was there a few terms, then went back to medicine, but then in 1996 I ran again.
So that was early on.
And really, it was the monetary issue and foreign policy that had motivated me.
But the security issue and the privacy issue became something I got intensely interested in.
And you mentioned Norm Singleton's name.
And Norm was a good researcher on that and kept a close eye on this.
And this is something that is devastating.
It's going to tremendously increase the power of the federal government.
And if you're looking for a system of knowing everything that goes on, this will be a concession.
Right now, what is available is that you can voluntarily do it, and the states under the Constitution can do it, and some of the states are doing it.
But if you put it in this bill the way it is, and we have to remind people that if you listen to some conservatives and libertarians, and they might say, well, this bill is not all that bad.
It's sort of curtailing some of the things the federal government's doing.
And it's true.
But that's not unusual that they'll put a few good things in and put the member of Congress in a bino.
I can't vote against that.
It's improving it here, but it's destroying it over here.
And my rule to myself to keep me thinking straight is you can't compromise on it because if you give up, let's just say 5% of the bill is bad.
Well, you know, if you do this, give 5% of your freedoms up in order to get something that should be automatic with the Constitution.
Eventually, you don't have much freedom left.
So I don't like that at all.
But there are some things in there that on the surface looks like it could be beneficial in protecting the people.
But the people have not responded on that issue.
They'll say, they better look at the big picture and what it means.
And this is a massive surveillance system.
And the federal government will be running it for all kinds of reasons that they'll want to do.
Well, the bill is called the Border Security and Verification Act of 2023.
And I believe Ryan said it's going to be on the floor this week.
I haven't looked at the floor schedule this week.
But as you say, Ryan points out that buried in the bill, among other things that are probably not that awfully bad, is this nationwide e-verified mandate.
And it's been around and a few states have adopted it as states, but this will be nationwide.
It'll be a nationwide database.
What it means is that you have to prove to your employer that the federal government allows you to work.
Now, a lot of Republicans and conservatives are opposite of your position on this because they say, we've got to keep those illegals from their jobs.
We can't let them work.
Not realizing that it's not just illegals that are going to have to show their papers to work.
It's every single American.
And, you know, back when Norm and I and the rest were working on this, we talked about how many false positives and false negatives there were.
You know, you could be trying to get a job and you enter your verification and you're rejected for error, a government error reason.
You may not get that job.
It can go on and on.
So, but a lot of Republicans and conservatives would say, oh, Ron, you know, this is wrong.
It's not going to go after a regular American just after illegals.
Well, these are the same people that said, oh, Ron, the Patriot Act is only going to target terrorists.
They're not going to spy on us.
It's never going to happen.
So it's once bitten, twice shy.
It should be, unfortunately, on this.
Yeah, I asked somebody once who was very much up to date on how the Soviet system was able to maintain order without having millions and millions of soldiers marching in the streets.
And it was economics.
So if somebody wasn't doing as they should and they disobey the government, what they do is they take away an economic benefit, like their job or their home.
And all of a sudden it becomes very, very powerful.
But in a way, isn't that what they were doing with the lockdown?
They would come down, and if you do it, if you don't join, your job is going to be undermined.
You may lose your job and you may lose your income.
You may lose your license to practice medicine and all of these things.
So economic penalties.
And that is prevailing.
I think this e-verify is just another tool where they can wheel and deal on punishments and manipulating.
And then they're going to be very much involved in the immigration thing.
They'll be approved.
Of course, they can't approve more than what they've already approved of the numbers of people coming in.
Yeah.
Well, Ryan quotes a couple of things from Thomas Massey that makes some very good points.
It reminds me of the stuff you were saying back then, but updated for our current situation.
And he talks about how this nationwide database of who can and can't work really could be used to help implement the social credit scores in some way or the other.
Because if they, as you say, economics.
If they can prevent you from working, they can get you to do whatever they want for any other reason.
And he also makes the other point is this nationwide database can also be used to mandate vaccines.
They already tried it once, and they almost did it.
For some people in some sectors, they did do it.
That was the test switch.
This could be, here's what DeMassey says.
Imagine giving Biden the ultimate on-off switch for employment called e-Verify.
See, he would love to have done that, but he wasn't able to because there wasn't this nationwide database.
So anyway, the story is this is bad news.
It's going to be on the floor this coming week, and people should pay attention to it.
Yes.
They really should.
Well, let's move on to money, money, money, Dr. Paul.
If we can go to that next one, U.S. and U.K. vowed to aid Ukraine regardless of counteroffensive outcome.
This is from the Washington Post.
The Foreign Secretary of the UK came over, met with Blinken.
They both gave a press conference and said, we are going to continue writing checks to Ukraine.
We're not going to stop regardless of what happens.
Even if they start losing.
Maybe this is a warning.
And get people to be prepared.
But, you know, it's utter nonsense.
You know, he goes on and on.
These senseless, undeclared, unconstitutional wars, I think they just may well be designed to be perpetual.
You know, perpetual war for perpetual peace.
But the peace never seems to come.
And they're assuring people, but they don't know that the thing that ends empires is not just talk and bluff.
It's also real money and real wealth.
And that's what is a threat to us now because our empire is being threatened because it was requiring more and more authoritarianism, more and more spending, more and more debt, more and more inflation, all these things.
And eventually that is what ends this activity.
And if it gets to the point where you say, oh, no, we're going to send them money forever.
Well, maybe this won't be even that statement.
It may reassure a few neocons.
But guess what?
I don't think the neocons, when everybody knows what's going on, are running the world.
They run a lot, but I think when the information is out there, the people are going to say, no, we've had enough.
But unfortunately, it takes so long.
And when I think of the 60s, how long it took for the people to finally say enough is enough.
All the killing.
And we left.
And what was won?
Nothing.
Nothing.
And I thought, well, maybe they learned a lesson.
But the lesson didn't last very long.
George Bush said, I want to get rid of that.
So he was one of the successful war.
So he started that little war in Iraq and in the Middle East.
I think it's time to remake the Middle East.
Well, he didn't do so well there.
That ended up badly.
And then there's Afghanistan.
And then there's Syria.
It goes on and on.
So a good, healthy bankruptcy might restore liberty faster than us promising that we're going to spend forever and take care of the military-industrial complex.
And look at how the message of the administration, as reflected in the Washington Post, which is the paper of record, the state journal.
Look how the rhetoric has changed now.
It was, if we only give them some more weapons and money, they will win.
They can do this.
How many general after general after former general, they can do this, they can win.
If we just give them another tranche of money and more weapons, they can win.
Now, listen how the tune has changed.
If we can put the next clip, this is from that Washington Post article.
And look at how the tune has changed now.
Britain and the U.S. will continue supporting Ukraine regardless of whether its military can recover territory from Russia in a planned counteroffensive.
That doesn't sound too confident anymore.
And you move on.
British Foreign Secretary James Clevery and Secretary of State Anthony Bincon, speaking in a joint news conference in Washington, said they were committed to ongoing aid for Ukraine despite mounting questions about what the spring operation can achieve in the face of intense Russian resistance.
So clearly now there is a change in tone in the administration.
Even though we don't think this counteroffensive is going to be that awfully successful, we still have to give them more money and more weapons.
And that goes back to what you said when this whole thing started.
The U.S. is going to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian.
Ukraine's Dwindling Confidence00:02:24
And that's what this sounds like.
But even more than that, Ukraine itself seems to have lost confidence.
Look at this next one.
This is from that same article.
They seem to realize, they seem to no longer believe in their mission.
Top Ukrainian officials have said they worry the offensive, which aims to recapture areas seized by Russia following Putin's invasion, could fall short of Western expectations, potentially jeopardizing needed assistance.
This does not sound like Ukraine is winning to me.
You know, during the campaign, when I would bring up this subject and suggested that we bring the troops home, which they interpret as being surrendering, yes, surrendering our stupid policy, that's one thing.
But the one thing that they would use that was the most difficult because it's very sensitive, and that is there's a lot of people who died for this, a lot of people have been injured.
And if you just walk away, are you going?
And they pointed right to me and I said, does that mean you're going to allow them to have died in vain?
And how do you answer that?
And I would say that if they die in vain, I said, how is sending more in there, more money, more troops, more death, more destruction, more attacks on our liberties, and say that will do something to assuage the dying in vain business.
You have to stop the.
It's only worthwhile if you learn something about these disasters.
But we might learn a lesson for a week or two or deceive the people for a little bit, but until they decide that the principle of the foreign policy ought to be somewhat related to the principle designed in our Constitution, this is going to continue.
And then it gets really messy when we have to declare the next stage of our bankruptcy.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, let's put on this next one because this is a clip from the DOD, the Defense Department, announcing just yesterday, Dr. Paul, despite U.S. expressing doubts that Ukraine is going to win, despite even Ukraine expressing doubts that this thing's going to go well, despite all of this, the U.S. has announced if we can put that up, more money for Ukraine, even though there's a lack of confidence across the board.
Solar-Powered Off-Ramp00:02:47
The U.S. government is taking another $1.2 billion of our dollars and shipping it over to Ukraine in a war it no longer believes Ukraine can win, certainly in the short term.
And this is not an original thought of mine, Dr. Paul.
So when other people have been talking about this, my guess is they're looking for an off-ramp, and the off-ramp is going to look like something like when George W. Bush said mission accomplished and tried to pretend that the Iraq war was over when in fact it had only begun.
I think what they want to do is instead of their original claims that Ukraine will take back every inch of territory that the Russians occupy, they're going to say Ukraine won because it stayed more or less a country, more or less Ukraine, and that's going to be the benchmark that they have.
They're shifting the benchmarks, I think.
But I do want to, before we close, while we have our larger audience now, I do want to thank our sponsor for May, and that, of course, is 4patriots.com.
They're coming up.
And Dr. Paul, we had a heck of an electrical storm last night, and I was expecting at any moment for the power to go out.
I do not have a generator.
I wish I had the Patriot Power Generator 2000X provided by 4Patriots.com because the amazing thing about it is that it's not a gas generator, which they can be very good, but they can also be dangerous.
This is a solar-powered generation.
This is a new generation of portable, safe, silent, and 100% fume-free generators.
It's now available within the reach of all Americans at a price that most Americans can afford.
It's a solar generator that doesn't use gas.
It doesn't have fumes.
It's not loud.
It's quiet as a laptop.
You can move it.
You could upgrade it.
You can add power to it.
It's portable.
Throw it in your motorhome.
Throw it as you run away from the storms like I felt like doing last night.
But the great thing about it is you can use it to power your phones, medical devices, or even your refrigerator.
And the best thing about it is you can get 10% off this and all items on 4patriots.com if you use Ron as your code.
That's 10% off.
Go to 4patriots.com.
The link is in the description right now.
Get your 10% off.
Don't be sweating like I was last night, worrying that the power is going to go out.
So, Dr. Paul?
Wonderful.
So, if you're finished?
I'm finished.
I just hope that people will get the tickets to the conference.
That also is in the description below.
Oh, there, right.
Don't forget that.
All right, that's it.
All right.
I'm going to close with a brief statement because I found an outrage in the news today.
An outrage, Rude.
Yeah, they're easy to find.
Which one are you going to pick?
So the one I picked today is this one happens to be on not exactly a libertarian site.
Different Approach to Education00:03:00
It says U.S. government cancels $42 billion in public service workers student loans.
And then I look into this, and that's just a little bit.
They've been doing it all along, but Biden wants to move it up to $400 billion.
I wonder where he's going to get this money, you know, go on.
But the program is deeply flawed.
And guess who?
The people who either never got some benefits or the ones who paid back their loans, they're the ones who are going to be taxed for this.
So it just was not part of a moral society.
It's not part of a constitutional society for people to be taking money from one group and giving it to other.
And then the benefits of this cannot outweigh the violations of our liberties.
And pretty soon it's going to add up to a lot of money.
But it's still there.
And the other thing that impressed me or annoyed me was the fact that it's an announcement.
I thought, well, maybe they don't even have legislation to do it.
No, there is legislation, but the management of it falls into the hands of the executive branch.
And it's a program that was started in 2007.
So they've been giving assurances to certain individuals.
But this nude bailout will be for government employees.
They're already on the dole.
And different groups have qualified under that first program in 2007.
But the goal is to blanket, just to give it, you know, declare the whole thing bankrupt.
And that to me is sad.
I happen to believe that there's a different way to do this.
I was in office when Carter was in office and he made the Department of Education national and taking over, even though it was Eisenhower that started all that nationalization of our education system.
But that is something that we shouldn't have.
We shouldn't have a Department of Education.
We shouldn't have the federal government in education.
There's other ways to do it.
The early history of our country depended on more local private education, but it didn't take long for the government to get involved because that is their number one goal.
If you read the theories of many who want totalitarianism and then they admit it, the socialists, Marxists, and communists, they admit control education.
And I also believe very sincerely that the destruction of our republic started a little over 100 years ago when the progressives entered into this education business wholesale and were able to take over our school system, both at the college level as well as at the local level.
Government in Education?00:00:15
There's an easy answer for this.
Just look for guidance from the Constitution and look for peace and prosperity through the limitation of government power, and it can be achieved.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.