Just when the nearly $50 billion wasted on Ukraine was about to run out...Biden discovered another $3 billion under his couch cushions to keep the war chugging along. Also today: US Supremes green-light more IRS spying powers.
Get your tickets to the Ron Paul Institute's June 3rd Houston Conference:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/they-lie-nihilism-and-the-war-on-truth-tickets-590534212727
Show Sponsor
Just go to https://4Patriots.com and use code RON to get 10% off your first purchase of 4Patriots Survival Food. That’s https://4Patriots.com, use code RON.
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 this morning.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How was your weekend?
All righty.
Yeah, did you have a nice time on the weekend?
Wonderful, wonderful.
So I think we're doing better than what they're doing in that country of Ukraine that we've been taking care of.
Yeah, a couple of years ago.
Yeah, that's a mess out there.
But more people are recognizing that.
You notice, by the way, that there's more and more people who are becoming skeptical of having gone in there, but they didn't pay any attention to us unsolicited advice.
Just stay out of those places like that, because it's a lot harder to get out once you get into that mess.
And people find out they can make money on this deal.
Lots of money.
A couple people make money here, but then when the money goes over and our weapons go over there, it never stops.
You know, it's good for business over there.
Sometimes these weapons get traded again and sold and repaired and a new war started.
So it's perpetual war at the expense of the American taxpayer.
It's one group of people that don't seem to do too well in this deal.
But, you know, this weekend, Bakhmut was taken by the Russians, which is another thorn in the side of the Ukrainians.
But Zelensky, he doesn't seem to be diminished about this.
He's bold.
He's coming.
I want more money.
And if you don't help me, this is going to be a serious problem for the whole world.
So he's using that tactic.
But there is a tone that is changing, which we've noticed now, you know, for the last several weeks, a tone where the support is not so great.
And the one place where this change in attitude is cropping up, of course, there's been a lot of constitutionalists and conservatives and libertarians and a building coalition in Congress has been building for this.
But there's one other person that has entered into an active role in politics that I think is stirring apart.
That's RFK.
Yeah, that's true.
You know, what he's doing.
I bet, I guess at least, that there's a bit of real fear about what's happening in the Democratic Party, but in the Republican Party too.
Yes.
You know, because the majority is so much in favor of all these wars.
But it's money, money, money.
But, you know, sometimes magic happens.
Sometimes you lose money and you find your wallet.
Oh, I had $200 in my wallet.
I find my wallet.
Well, Biden, Biden just found some money.
And just change.
It was just change.
It was just $3 billion.
We misplaced it.
But we do have it.
But, you know, if one account gets empty, I wonder if the Fed could slip in and fill that account someway because the money is endless.
It continues.
But no, it is said that there was a technical mistake and they have $3 billion more.
But that doesn't solve their problems even by that because they had, they've spent over $100.
They had a $48 billion additional authorization.
And now they're down to about $6 billion.
But this will give them a little boost.
This will give them a week's worth of killing and fighting.
But anyway, there's some powers to be that can end war even beyond the misappropriation of the government by getting involved and the bad policies that they have.
So the big thing now is, is this shift real for Zelensky losing domination and getting everything he wants?
And that the war will be another war, a declared war, last another 20 years.
Once again, when this started a year or so ago, this is so little.
We can take care of this overnight.
It's already stretched into the second year.
And so before you know, so something has to change.
Something is changing.
But the question is, is it a false warning or indication that this thing has to come to an end?
The support is dwindling and our money is running short.
And that is yet to be decided.
But I think everybody in our audience, Daniel, know where we stand.
Yeah, for sure.
And, you know, as I was listening to your opening discussion, I was thinking, because you talked about accountability, no one in Washington seems to be interested in accountability for these 40, I think it's $46 billion for military aid, then another 50 or so billion for other aid, paying their salaries, et cetera.
And I was thinking, you know, there is someone, I have to say it, I mean, from the very beginning who said, look, I know I'm not going to win this vote on not sending money.
I'm not in favor of sending the money, even though he condemned the invasion.
But can't we at least have some accountability?
And that was Senator Paul.
And now he's going to come out of this, I think, smelling like a rose, because he said from the very beginning, I smell a real ripe field for corruption, and we need to make sure we're accountable to the American people.
They know where their money's going, and they laughed at him.
They ridiculed him.
They said he's Putin's puppet.
All of these horrible things.
Well, just like when he did the same with Fauci, saying we need to get behind what's going on here.
This guy is not a truthful person.
We find out he was absolutely correct.
Of course, we knew it all along.
So just like with Fauci and with COVID, I think the same thing history is going to treat Senator Paul kindly for just raising it.
And I think a lot of people are going to look back and pretend he never said it because they're going to be embarrassed about that.
Yes.
You know, most wars have a conspiratorial part to it because people behind the scenes, see for political reasons, sometimes it's, you know, sincere.
Oh, yeah, well, we have to have this little war to prevent the big war for coming.
Others are just cynical and they're in for it for the business and the money.
And they have to, either way, it seems like they have to lie to the people to talk to the people to support the war.
And so often they've been able to win those arguments.
Just as you point out, Rand Sefford to try to stop it and tell people what's going on there.
And he even admitted, I guess you guys won't go along.
But there are other factors than just the conspiracy of the people who perpetuate war for their own needs and desires.
And that is wars generally end by exhaustion.
You know, so often, except a few.
Sometimes when they know exactly why the war is being fought, who declared the war, and the people are behind it, it seems those wars, even if big ones, can end quickly.
But when the wars are not, you know, brought about in a more legalistic way, and that is, do they have a declaration of war?
You know why you're going in and you know what the end game is?
And I think we've drifted into that probably ever since World War II.
You know, just think Korea, you know, I remember the war in Korea, and it was a police action, you know, and barely mentioned in the Congress.
A few spoke out.
But it's been going on like that.
Then they lied us into getting support from the Congress to get involved in Vietnam and on and on it goes.
But I think there are other factors.
Exhaustion by the people.
There are too many body bags.
And also, financially, countries can't afford it anymore.
And we've already, you've mentioned a few things I did too, about the money.
It's so huge.
And how long can it last?
Well, now they have magic on their side.
They have the Fed on their side.
But the magic is, oh, we just found $3 billion.
We can fight this war for a couple more weeks.
Yeah.
Well, you make a good point.
What does the end game of the Ukraine war look like?
Now, first, we were told for so long when the mantra was Ukraine is winning, is that they're going to get back every square inch of their territory.
Just give them a couple of guns, a couple of Hanmars, a couple javelins, no problem.
It'll be done by Monday.
Well, that didn't work out so well.
So then we're being told, well, we have to put them in a better position so that when they go to the negotiating table, they're negotiating from a better position.
Now that implicitly or explicitly concludes that they're not going to win.
They're not going to take back the territory.
So they don't know what the end goal is.
But what we're talking about is this $3 billion.
And this is a big story that came out.
But you remember, Dr. Paul, last week, this is what we were talking about.
Put on that first clip because this is from Politico and we talked about this last week.
The end of Ukraine aid is rapidly approaching.
Re-upping it won't be easy.
So that 40-some billion that was authorized, I think 37 was appropriated.
There's about $6 billion left.
It's running to the end.
End of the line.
They're admitting that Congress is not going to be super keen.
Election season.
We've got the debt ceiling going haywire.
Everyone going nuts.
Nobody wants to take a political risk.
So what happens?
Put on the next clip.
Here's what happens.
Washington does Washington like no one else.
$3 billion accounting error means Pentagon can send more weapons to Ukraine.
I wish my wife had made that kind of error on my IRS form this year because I would have loved to see that.
But unfortunately, that wasn't the case.
Well, here's from the article.
Just when they were running out of money, Dr. Paul, they found some money.
Put the next one on.
And here's how they did it.
The Pentagon has overestimated the value of weapons it's sent to Ukraine by at least $3 billion, an accounting effort that can be a boon.
So what they did essentially, if we can put it next, this is exactly, this is like when you crash a car and your insurance only gives you the value of the car at the time rather than a new car.
This is what they claim.
And I don't know, maybe they got this info from Geico, but the error was caused when officials overvalued some of the systems sent to Ukraine using the value of money it would cost to replace an item completely rather than the current value of the weapon.
And many of the packages the Pentagon has opted to draw from its stockpiles of older existing gear.
So you know how that works.
Yeah, and they'll get away with it for a while, but eventually, you know, economics are very powerful.
Economic law will finally bring it down.
And that's why we see the old system developed after World War II cracking at the seams because the dollar is not holding up like it has to if you're going to just print and take care of the world and run an empire.
So that's all coming about.
But you know, it's understanding why people go to war.
The comparison between how we went into war and World War II, although there can be a big discussion on could it have been prevented with better diplomacy.
Anyway, there was a bombing.
We were bombed by Japan, and then war was declared against us by Germany.
And the American people were really, really supportive of it because we had been attacked.
And they declared war.
Everybody's out there and the sentiment, I remember the sentiment about rationing and all these other things during World War II.
Kids, including myself, we were engaged in trying to raise money and buying a $25 bond to finance the war, not realizing they were printing money to fight the war.
But anyway, the people were behind it.
The war was declared, and there was an end game.
Defeat the military power of the Nazis and the Japanese.
And that was the end game, and they did.
Matter of fact, a little excessive, too, when they didn't need to do all that.
But anyway, that's beside the point at this moment.
But they knew what the end game was.
And what was done in those couple years, you know, the economic power that we have and the ability to manufacture was probably the significant thing that competed, you know, with all the military power.
But the one thing, though, that's happened since 9-11 has been the refusal of all our leaders, almost all our leaders, of saying, you know, why were we attacked?
Why did 9-11 happen?
And, you know, I've mentioned this several times on our program.
It was explained to us by our president.
There were people who just detested our freedoms and our liberties and our prosperity, and therefore they hated us, and therefore they had to make a point and attack us.
Well, I don't think that's the reason they attacked us.
But since they didn't come up with the right answer, they said, it's the terrorism, it's the terrorism and the evil that's in the world.
So therefore, we declare war against terrorism.
And, you know, the other day we talked about it, what was it?
4.5 million people have died and maybe more since that time.
The wars keep coming and coming.
And you know how many countries have been involved?
And mainly because they have not been required to do one thing that they all took an oath to do.
And that is you don't go to war.
You don't finance the war when you haven't made a declaration of what the war is all about and what the end game is.
So that has gone by.
And so I think that the real mess has occurred ever since 9-11 because of misunderstanding and miscalculation and the willingness for our country to accept the fact that the Constitution, as I was told and lectured about, is anachronistic.
We don't follow certain parts of the Constitution.
This was a chairman of a committee.
Don't mess around with these details.
And I think that has a greater significance than anybody really understands, is that you don't follow these rules and get the people to make a commitment, you end up perpetual war.
Chilling Surveillance Insights00:11:16
Perpetual war for, they think, perpetual speech, peace.
No, it's perpetual war for perpetual chaos and perpetual profiteering.
That's what we've ended up with.
Yeah, they say the war was not meant to be won.
It was meant to be permanent.
And they're doing a good job of that.
Well, anyone worrying that, you know, maybe some of this money might be going astray, you know, we sent $40 billion to the most corrupt country in Europe.
Well, don't worry.
If we can go, if we can actually skip one clip and go to the next one, I know I'm making it tricky, but we should all feel comforted, Dr. Paul, in knowing that in late February, the Pentagon's Inspector General's office said his office has found no evidence yet that any of the billions of dollars in weapons aid to Ukraine have been lost to corruption or diverted into the wrong hands.
So, Dr. Paul, the Pentagon investigated the Pentagon and it discovered that the Pentagon did nothing wrong.
There's no problem.
None of these weapons are getting out.
They're only going to the stated purpose.
Even that same arguments used with the Fed.
Oh, we audit the Fed all the time, of course, except for their policies.
And who gets to attend the meetings and who turns the switch on and off for it?
So that is a problem.
And that, of course, is something that from very early on, because it was intended that these wars couldn't be fought because you couldn't print money.
And there would have been a lot less need to worry about raising the debt limit all the time because if the Fed couldn't buy all this debt, they wouldn't have to worry about the deficit because the interest rates would deal with it.
The interest rates are going up.
But no, they had to do that.
That's why they had to very early on start meddling with the Federal Reserve, especially the last 120 years.
And I think we see the signs of that all around us.
Yeah, for sure.
Well, let's move on.
And we're just going to make a quick mention of this because a group that includes some people that we know and have worked with in the past, if you can put that next clip up, this is from our friends over at Consortium News.
And they did an article, I think, today.
U.S. national security experts call for peace in Ukraine.
And this is a new outfit called the Eisenhower Media Network.
And some folks that we know are involved in it.
And what they did is they took out a big advertisement in the New York Times.
And now you can say, well, that's a paid ad, what have you.
But of course, if the Times was covering this properly, they wouldn't have had to spend the money to take out an ad.
And of course, I'm sure that they're trying to avoid paying attention.
If we could put that next one on, because here is what the ad looked like.
And the U.S. should be a force for peace in the world.
Now, we may not agree, especially as non-interventionists, on the whole enchilada here on what they're talking about.
But nevertheless, they make a couple of good points.
And one of the very good points they make, if you can put on the next one, is something that we've talked about forever, Dr. Paul.
If you look at this map, they call this, what if the shoe were on the other foot?
Now on the left, you see reality, which is Russia, which is virtually surrounded by NATO military bases everywhere around it.
That's the reality.
But what if the shoe were on the other foot is the one on the right that shows the U.S. surrounded by a Canada and Mexico with Russian military bases all over it.
I think we know the answer, Dr. Paul, what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot.
Yeah, some people don't like to hear that argument because they don't have an answer.
They just don't have an answer.
And I think so much of what we do, whether it's sanctions or whatever, that we put on, thinking that we can do that because, you know, we're responsible for peace and prosperity for the world and it is our duty to do this.
And yet the questionnaire is even just the sanction issue, which some people opt out for and say, well, that's not real war.
I consider it real war.
And I think that, you know, if we had the sanctions put on us like we've done around the world, the American people would have been sick and tired of it.
Right now, though, it seems to be used as an effort to keep going because if anybody strikes back, then it's all their fault.
So, you know, they're not really analyzing the relationship between, especially America and China, because as bad as China is, some of the things that they complain about is the fact that what we have done to stir up trouble with the trade, you know, the monetary system, the whole works.
But blaming other people is a common thing to do, but eventually they'll catch up.
Well, let's look at the signers of this letter because they are some people that we know and we should give them some credit for sticking their necks out on this, if we can just put that next one up.
And, you know, we know Matthew Ho back from when we were on the Hill.
Karen Kwitowski, of course, writes for Lou Rockwell.
We've run her stuff.
We know Karen well.
Jack Matlock, we don't know in person, but he's certainly a very, very senior official, former ambassador to the USSR.
Colleen Rowley, very well known.
Jeffrey Sachs, I think he spoke at a conference with you in Bumper once.
Chuck's been a friend of mine for 25 years, I think.
Winslow Wheeler, leave that up, please.
Winslow Wheeler, a longtime friend of ours, and of course we know Anne Wright.
So these are people that we know well.
They're trying to do something.
They're trying to get some traction to end this careening toward World War III.
And I think, you know, they deserve this Eisenhower Media Network.
We owe them hats off, you know, for their efforts, I think.
Well, that's for sure.
And there's no way to know exactly what will come about.
But I think because it is an election year, I've never thought elections were really going to change things.
This is going to be the most important election ever.
And I don't even say that this time, but it is important.
And maybe there will be some surprises because the situation is quite different.
Quite different because we might have, it'll be quite different because we might have two people running against the other that did it once before and both are former presidents or a current president.
So it could be very interesting.
And like I said just a little while ago, I'm fascinated with the entree of RFK.
You know, he, I don't know, I can't speak for him, but I still think that he is getting a little bit changed.
He almost sounds like a libertarian on some of the issues.
But anyway, I'm glad he's out there.
Well, you know, I think I sent something to you over the weekend.
I sent it to Lou as well.
He retweeted an article from LewRockwell.com.
So he or his campaign retweeted an LRC article.
So that is really something.
And, you know, we don't have any illusions that we're going to agree with him on every issue.
But certainly when some of these big issues are being discussed, he's out there discussing it.
And actually, I saw a Ras Musen poll this morning talking about how RFK Jr. had started at 14%, which is pretty significant, and now he's at 25%.
So it's pretty interesting.
So the next thing we want to, the last thing we want to talk about is something I know is near and dear to your heart, Dr. Paul.
And I messed up the order, so if you could skip to the EPOC Times with a photo on it first.
I don't know what I did, but yeah, here we go.
Thanks.
Supreme Court rules that the IRS can secretly grab bank accounts of outside parties.
That doesn't sound very good, Dr. Paul.
What's going on?
No, and maybe there's something missing because we have a couple good people, you know, on the Supreme Court, but there was no votes on that.
They went along with it.
What they're saying is if you're being challenged, that if you are associated with other people that you might have shared some business or communications with, that their records can be searched without a search warrant.
Or notification, you know, to the person in the IRS that's supposed to do that.
But that can be scary.
Excuse me, even though this case started, I think, with a man and a wife, and a wife had separate records and that sort of thing.
But the people who are concerned about this are saying, well, maybe this is just the opening to this.
Maybe if you said hello to somebody someday, that'll be the excuse.
But I don't, you know, this is important because it's out in the open.
But, you know, I guess I've gotten so cynical.
I say, you know, just what Ed Snowden tells us.
They're going to look at anything they want if they have a desire to go ahead and do this.
But it makes a point that we should be alert to this.
And I hate to see it being just accepted as current policy.
And yet, I just think that as a person like Ed Snowden, you know, all his efforts to expose what was going on there would have helped us if we'd have taken some of his advice.
Yeah, it's funny that you mentioned it.
We didn't talk about it.
I thought the same thing when I read this article because it reminds me of what we learned about FISA, where if you talk to a foreigner, not only can they monitor you automatically from that, but they can monitor like the third, like the third leap.
That's right.
And that's what this is.
They can monitor the third leap.
So it's not very good news.
And here's what Justice Jackson wrote.
She agreed, but she wrote a separate brief, whatever you call it on it.
I'm sorry, I don't remember.
But if you can go to the next one after that, this is what she said.
And this is the second part that's chilling.
Go forward to if you can.
There we go.
Thanks.
So this is Justice Jackson.
I think she's the newest justice on the court.
She said, Congress has recognized there might be situations, particularly in the collection context, where providing notice could frustrate the IRS's ability to effectively administer the tax laws.
For instance, upon receiving a notice that the IRS had served a summons, interested persons might move to hide collectible assets, making the agency's collective efforts substantially harder.
So the whole idea here is make it easy for the government to take your money.
Yeah, that's why I was disappointed that we didn't get one vote.
Make the good statement and show us what happened and vote no.
Because, well, that's a shame, but I guess we're going to have to do our duty and reveal as much of this as we can to urge people to understand what the purpose of government should be.
And it certainly is the purpose of us and the people is really to restrain power from gravitating to the government because the power is going to be used against us.
And that's why we're in a crisis right now because the people have been neglectful.
We have a lot of people we can blame and university professors and the whole work.
But the people still have a responsibility.
I mean, we assume responsibility for our spiritual lives.
Why can't we assume the responsibility for our political life?
People Still Have Responsibility00:04:45
Yeah, great boy.
Well, as we move toward the closing of the new week starting, I want to thank our sponsors this month.
And of course, that's 4patriots.com.
They want to remind us all that there are known safety threats in gas generators.
Possible carbon monoxide leak can cause enormous damage to people and could take lives.
The people at 4patriots.com have a new generation of portable, safe, silent, and 100% fume-free generators.
No carbon monoxide for you.
And it's at a price where all Americans should be able to afford it.
The Patriot Power Generator is a solar generator.
So it doesn't use gas.
It doesn't emit fumes.
And it's not loud.
It's quiet as a laptop.
And the big bonus is you can pick it up and carry it around and use it where you need to use it.
You can power your phones, medical devices, even your refrigerator, if you need to and when you need to.
The great news from 4patriots.com as our sponsor.
They're giving you a special 10% off your first purchase on anything in the store, not just a generator.
I have the link already below, so go to 4patriots.com, put in Ron, and get your 10% discount.
And Dr. Paul, I do want to close my end out today by revealing our lineup for our June 3rd conference.
I know it's getting close.
Change your plans if you have to.
Come out and see us.
Put up this next one.
Here is the first reveal to the general public.
I mailed it out to our sponsors earlier.
But this is our June 3rd conference.
We're starting out with myself talking about state corporate censorship.
Then we have our good friend Scott Horton.
And this is a tentative schedule.
Let's keep that in mind.
Lying us into the new Cold War with Russia.
Our friend Jordan Schachtel of the dossier is going to give a talk, and I don't have it here in front of me.
Then we're going to have Peter Van Buren, and most of our readers know Peter Van Buren for his great book, We Meant Well, and he will be giving us a report on the Durham Report, Unmasks the Deep State.
And I'm really looking forward to that presentation.
And then, guess what, Dr. Paul?
You're going to give a talk about nihilism.
So it's going to be a great lineup, a great group of people getting together.
The link is in the description.
So go ahead and get those tickets and come see us in Houston in a couple weeks.
Very good.
And I would like to urge as many people as possible can come because we look forward to our rallies and our meetings and associating with people.
And I'm sure you will have a good time if you come.
I want to close with a follow-up on this tax issue because we're always going to have to deal with the tax issue.
But last year, there was a bill passed, which Daniel will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Look to the title, and we can probably advise the congressman what to do.
Because if you look at the title, it sounds pretty good, but it's always a lie.
So last year, the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden signed into tax law in August of 2022, allocated almost $80 billion to the IRS to hire an extra 87,000 agents.
And now they're still fighting with it, and the Republicans now in charge in the House alone.
They're trying to whittle that time down.
But no matter what they pass, it won't mean much because there's a Senate to overcome.
And there's also who's going to sign the bills.
But it's this whole principle that this gets by and the people just don't get too excited about it.
But it's power and even this becomes secondary to the real tax, and that's the inflation tax.
Because if they don't collect the money from us, they're just going to print the money.
So what?
The poor people can pay it by having higher prices.
That's the only problem you have with just printing all this money.
But it is a mess.
And the irony here, the Inflation Reduction Acts, that is such a farce.
And yet it goes by.
And people still seriously talk about that on the television.
Oh, yeah, we did this.
And this is part of the Democrats love more agents.
And that's why they're thinking about sending out more IRS agents and doing more audits.
And that is a big problem.
Careless Compromises Cost Liberties00:01:06
So the only answer to this is having a society that endorses the principle of law.
And we have one that was supposed to help us, and that was our Constitution, which is generally ignored.
But I still am an optimist in believing that when there's a choice by the people and they have the information, people will still opt for liberty over tyranny.
But sometimes they get careless and accept a compromise in between, generally steadily losing our liberties.
So that to me is the issue.
Are we able to preserve a republic where our liberties are very important and that is of a high order?
Most everything else comes together if you can understand the nonviolence and the peaceful activity of a nonviolent society.
And I think that is what we want.
We want to promote the cause of peace, and that is the reason why if you're looking for peace and prosperity, you have to accept that basic principle.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.