Biden Admin Goes Full 'Banana Republic' With Preposterous Trump Indictment
The Biden Administration's indictment of former President Trump (again) not only smacks of desperation in the face of Biden's flaccid support. It also is blatantly totalitarian and absurd. Essentially, Trump is being threatened with jail time for believing the 2020 election was not completely above-board and for sharing his beliefs. Even those who hate Trump should be terrified at the thought of Americans being imprisoned for having "bad thoughts." Also today: Why is the US State Department ignoring the torture and illegal incarceration of American journalist Gonzalo Lira at the hands of the Ukrainian government?
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.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you today?
25.
All right.
25.
Excellent.
Our First Amendment is not doing well.
No, it's under attack.
It's under attack.
It's sick.
And you've heard my argument before.
You know, all the amendments are good.
The Constitution thrust is good.
The Second Amendment is especially good.
But I've argued that the most important thing we hang on to is the right to speak out and express ourselves and try to change people's minds voluntarily.
So this is very, very important.
But today we hear a lot of people getting up and saying good things about the First Amendment, but they also think there has to be a supervisor because they believe in the truth, but they will decide what is true.
And this is a, you know, would be compatible with the Constitution, that you have a right to do that.
But they sort of come along and they draw a line, but don't express your opinion.
You know, you can't have an opinion on anything.
And so now it's really deteriorated ever since the hate movement occurred in 2016.
And I do that seriously because I think hate has driven so much of what's been going on.
And this whole thing driven at Trump, not that he's an easy person to defend, but he didn't follow the status quo, didn't follow the rules, and he really defied the people who want to establish what truth really is so that he obeys and knows how to use the First Amendment.
That has turned into a hate episode, which is continuous.
They can't stand it that he actually won and was president.
So their whole goal, their whole thing driven has been the destruction of the First Amendment, lying through their teeth, and making sure that he's not even, I mean, if they had had the way, if his enemies had their way, they would not, they've tried to make sure that he wasn't even allowed to run for the presidency.
So it's a mess.
We're a far cry from what the First Amendment is supposed to mean.
And now we have all these court cases going on.
And when I look at them, they're so bad, just like the lockdown was bad, and this polygenderism is so bad that we're breaking through on that and people are waking up.
So I don't know whether the people are going to wake up soon enough, but I know there's a lot of people who are sick and tired of the attack by the Department of Justice and also by the FBI.
I never thought that people would be that willing to criticize and try to rein in the FBI.
But that's what's going to be necessary.
But right now, we're in the midst of a major, major thing occurring in Washington today.
This whole idea that there's a fair trial when 98% of the people hate his guts and put it in Washington and so much stuff.
Everything goes to Washington.
So probably any case in the country that have some justification for, oh, you violated a national law, Washington.
Indictment Controversy00:14:16
We'll try you there.
That's where you have freedom of speech, and we will make sure you don't get into any trouble.
We'll tell you exactly what you're allowed to say in print.
Yeah, I mean, this indictment is absolutely insane.
And we have some people that we respect that are talking about that.
But this Jack Smith is obviously so obviously a crazed partisan.
When you watch him making the announcement about the indictment, and we have a clip of it, you can see that he's a crazed partisan.
He's the equivalent of someone coming out with five masks on during COVID and a shield and a ventilator.
This is how crazy the guy looks.
It's literally insane.
And we're going to kind of base what we're saying today on two articles that our friend Jonathan Turley wrote.
Because as we know, number one, he is no fan of Trump whatsoever, and he'll let you know that in no uncertain terms.
He has some views of January 6th that we may not even share because he does think that it was a lot more serious than certainly I believe, I guess you do.
But he says, nevertheless, this indictment is crazy.
I'm going to read a little bit of something.
And to show how bad it is, even the Daily Beast, which hates Trump with the passion, they published Turley's assessment.
And that says a lot.
And so here's the crux of it.
And I'm reading from Turley's piece in the Beast.
He says, While the indictment recognizes that politicians are protected in making false statements in elections, he proceeds to charge Trump for doing precisely that in claiming that the 2020 elections were stolen.
Smith simply charged Trump, did not really believe it, therefore it's a fraud.
So he didn't believe when he said it was stolen.
He just said it, so therefore it's fraud.
And Turley goes on: The implications of this filing were captured on CNN, where host Caitlin Collins explained, The First Amendment does not allow the President of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was not fraud, end quote.
And Turley continues, That is, of course, entirely wrong.
Just because you are told something doesn't mean you have to believe it or that you cannot publicly contradict what you have been told.
And I think that explains everything.
Because he contradicted what he was told, i.e., the election was completely, completely clear, because he contradicted that, he therefore must go to jail.
It's crazy.
But there'll be the supervisors if there's a if they made a mistake and overstepped their bound, there'll be supervisors there to guide us toward the correct position.
And let's say that there were a few honest people trying to enforce such a silly rule.
Everything that he's done, what people are saying, nobody really knows what Donald Trump was thinking.
You know, it's subjective.
And then, even if he sincerely believed it, he ought to be allowed to say it.
It is really very bad.
If they get away with this, this is going to be really, there's been some dire predictions, and I agree with the danger that's going on.
But I'm still hopeful that when things get this bad, a few people will wake up.
But if you say that the people who may be sympathetic for Trump for various reasons, at least they're on the side of saying the people who would like to put him in jail and make sure he can't even run and we will destroy him.
There's a lot of people who disagree with that.
And like you point out, even some liberals will break loose, and that'll be what's going to happen.
Well, let's get a little bit of a flavor of this Jack Smith character.
Let's play one minute of this.
This is his announcement of the indictment.
Just pay attention to his demeanor and also his characterization of January 6th, because this reminds me of the last gasp of the January 6th extremists.
Let's listen to him.
Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail.
I encourage everyone to read it in full.
The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies.
lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s government the nation's process of collecting counting and certifying the results of the presidential election the men and women of law and probably take it down I think, I mean, does this not sound like a crazed partisan?
And I think to emphasize this, and this is someone I know that you respect a lot, and even when we don't always agree with him, Alan Dershowitz, there's no question he is an extremely intelligent man, a brilliant man, a brilliant scholar.
Well, he took this apart in this next clip I'm going to ask our friend in the back to put up.
Let's play a minute and 14 seconds of Dershowitz explaining and characterizing how absurd this indictment is.
You might want to put that in your ear, Dr. Paul, because here's Dershowitz, if we can get in the first one minute and 14 seconds of this.
So I've now read the indictment very, very carefully and very thoroughly.
It is one of the strangest documents I've ever read.
And to show you, to demonstrate how open-ended and broad this indictment is, I'm only doing this to illustrate.
I'm not going to say it's going to happen or it should happen, just to illustrate.
Under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith, the prosecutor, could be indicted.
Let me explain why.
The core of the indictment is that Donald Trump lied to the public.
He lied.
He just lied.
But Jack Smith lied.
In his indictment, he outlines the speech that Donald Trump made on January 6th.
It's a very important part of the indictment.
But he deliberately, willfully, and with malice, leaves out the key words.
He doctors the speech.
He leaves out the fact that Donald Trump said, I want you to protest peacefully and patriotically, peacefully and patriotically.
Those are the two words that bring him within the First Amendment.
Now, you can argue about that.
A great point that Dershowitz makes that Smith himself lied and mischaracterized Trump's speech and could be indicted himself and should be indicted himself.
Yeah, you know, a lot of people now are questioning jurisdiction.
Maybe there's a lot to debate about how the jurisdiction always ends up in Washington.
And if they ever got that to the Supreme Court, maybe they could get a favorable ruling.
But the Constitution has been pretty clear and the traditions have been pretty clear that if there have been breaking of the law, maybe the president was caught speeding or something like that.
You don't hollow him off to civil courts and all.
But if it's very, very serious and the country agrees it's serious and it's bipartisan and they have to deal with this guy, he's really, really in trouble, the processes of Faust gave us, it's my opinion that that's what impeachment is all about.
And I keep thinking, wouldn't it be ironic that that became a prevailing understanding that you deal with it through the impeachment, then when you impeach him, then the legal system comes.
If he's been accused of murder, the legal system comes and deals with this.
But I think, won't it be ironic if they said, well, he was doing very bad things, insurrection and all this stuff.
So we had to do it.
We did.
We did exactly as you said.
We impeached him and then we did it again.
Yeah, and then it was rejected.
So maybe the rejection of the proper, the process will go a long way to saying, look, they followed it.
And the answer was, this is not impeachable.
And it's hardly an excuse to turn it over to the Washington courts.
It becomes such a farce.
Yeah.
Well, let's look at a couple of the quotes from his USA Today article.
I mean, Jonathan Turley, because I think they're important.
Go to the next one.
Now, this is the article.
Indicting Trump for knowingly false statements about the election said C. On a dangerous path, is what Turley wrote yesterday.
Go to the next one.
Here is a quote from that article.
He makes a good point.
This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment.
It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.
That is so critical because we talked through the entire COVID era.
We were accused of spreading disinformation.
Senator Paul was spreading disinformation.
Dr. Peter McCullough was spreading disinformation.
It all turned out to be right.
Under this precedent, not only could they have their reputations destroyed, they could be literally put in prison.
But, you know, this is very, very serious, but some serious things were going on with COVID, too.
When you think about the people who wanted to challenge those individuals in government on what you could say about the virus, and literally to the point where if you were so old-fashioned, and I'm in that category about what I learned in medical school about natural immunity, and many, many parents throughout history knew about natural immunity, that they allowed, they then said, well, natural immunity,
if you say it, you're done.
And people did.
They lost their jobs.
So that opens up the door.
You know, if Trump can be penalized, could they go back and everybody else that spouted the same lies and the same opinion?
It should be the word opinion.
Same opinions and what was going on.
And I was also thinking about what about sorting out the truth and things like the assassination of JFK.
You know, there's a lot of lies and things told.
At the beginning, it was almost universal.
We knew exactly what happened.
But now, the 80% of the American people know that is not the way it was.
But back in those days, there was a little bit more tolerance of it.
Not much, but a little more tolerance.
Now there's now, if this thing goes through, there's zero tolerance of people expressing their opinion, and it could spread.
So even if it's just one person they're after, anybody who was a friend of so-and-so, even his attorneys might become the victims too.
It just is what's going on here.
That's a great word for it.
Yeah.
It's a great word for it.
Well, you know, polls have shown consistently that more than half of Americans believe that the elections in 2020 were not pristine.
You know, that's an understatement.
And certainly among Republicans, the percentage who believed there was something wrong with those elections was very, very high.
So the question is, first you jail Trump for saying that, and next are you going to jail all of Trump's supporters?
Are you going to jail half the country because they don't believe the election was perfect?
That sounds like what they're trying to tell us.
Yeah, I think that's exactly it.
And that just solidifies, if it's allowed to happen, it solidifies their dictatorship because they have to control the speech.
This is the first thing people do.
Yes, of course, they take guns, you know, prior to this because somebody might use a gun against the government, but they also have to control the speech.
And this is why they are so eager to detail to us about what's going on with social media.
Yeah, I mean, and that gets a little more complicated, too, on where the lines are drawn.
But they'll want control, and even though they've been caught doing nasty things, there's still a tremendous amount of power on who's going to establish opinion through the social media.
Yes.
Well, let's go back to Turley for a second.
If we go to that next clip, because here's a little bit more about the indictment.
And he breaks it down.
He says, Smith indicted Trump because the now former president, quote, this is according to the indictment, spread lies that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won, end quote.
And here's Turtle again.
The special counsel also says Trump, quote, repeated and widely disseminated the lies to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.
And then if you go to the next one, Turley goes on to say, well, hold on a minute.
He says, how do you prove legally that Trump didn't believe, put that next one up, please?
Trump didn't believe his false claims.
And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods?
How do you legally, I think you need to go back one.
Even if you can prove that he lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies that other political leaders have told over the years?
When in politics does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior?
Turtley continues.
Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court and ones that Trump's defense team are likely to raise.
What if we had this authority on our side and we say, yeah, now we can make sure they have the proper economic policy?
Charges Against Hillary?00:04:48
Yeah.
All the economic policy you've been promoting, you know, is not true.
It's false.
It's a lie.
And then all of a sudden, of course, that's ridiculous.
But in a way, you know, if you're going to try to regulate everything they said, but you approach that a little bit differently.
But here or now, they're not going to allow the market to help sort this out at all or the Constitution.
It just has to be an authoritarian approach, demagoguing it and lying, cheating, and stealing.
Yeah, exactly what they're doing.
Well, I'll finish Turley's piece by pointing out that going back to the beginning, where he also characterizes Smith.
He doesn't use the word unhinged, but he certainly talks about him sounding, quote, more like a pundit than a prosecutor, if you can put that next one up.
He says, the special counsel gave an impassioned Account of the Capitol Hill riot that made it sound like Trump was in charge with incitement.
He wasn't, nor was he charged with seditious conspiracy despite his second impeachment on those charges.
That goes back to what you said.
So basically, I think what Smith is trying to do is conflate this whole narrative about the January 6th insurrection and somehow do a bait and switch that somehow, wink-wink, he was involved in it without having the ability to legally charge him with it.
It seems like the Republicans are going to have to have some really, really good attorneys to get some of this adjudicated at a higher level because this is, you know, how many times have you heard them say on the various issues, two or three of the issues, this has never been done before.
It's not in the Constitution.
It's not even in the process.
Nobody did it.
You know, taking a case that is a civil case and moving it to a criminal case in a different district.
Yeah.
I mean, that should be enough to stir some people up, but it will not really materialize a true resistance.
It would have to involve more of the honest Democrats that are saying, you know, enough is enough.
And there are, I bet you there's some out there.
First thing we should watch for are people who are a little quieter.
Yeah.
You know, because they're starting, hey, this is getting really tough to defend what they've been doing.
Yeah, I'm getting some heat back in my district on this.
That would be the key thing.
Well, here, I just want to do one last thing, if you'll indulge me, Dr. Paul, because I think this is a really excellent piece of analysis, and it's done by someone from a competing political party.
And this is the chairman of the Libertarian Party, Angela McArdle, who we both know.
And I think she did a great tweet on this.
She points out: quote, many past candidates, including presidential nominee Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, who in 2016 called Trump an illegitimate president who stole the election, these have routinely refused to concede elections and forced tedious recounts involving Supreme Court decisions.
McCartle continues.
The people bringing these indictments seek to play Kingmaker outside of the electoral process, knocking their opponents out of races in the most depraved and unscrupulous way possible.
Unless Trump took clearly illegal action, fighting to win an election isn't a crime.
What a stark contrast to the way President Biden is being treated now regarding the accusations leveled against him with Burisma Holdings.
Very good statement.
There's an improvement around that group.
Absolutely.
And just to back up what she said, let's remember what Hillary Clinton said.
She said the elections were fake and they were stolen, but she's not in jail right now, despite what Trump promised.
But put up that, cue up that last clip.
We're going to play that whole clip if we can.
Not the last, the second to last clip, sorry, with Hillary.
There we go.
Here's Hillary.
Let's listen to what Hillary's saying.
Want to put your earphone in?
I've been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign.
You can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.
That sounds like an insurrection.
I wonder if they're going to file charges.
There's a hearing going on in Washington right now.
I wonder if they're going to be including her.
She said it 100 times, you know, and she should be allowed to say it.
She should be allowed to believe it.
Yeah, but there is one clip out there by the conservative station that lists six people like that that have said the same thing when they're election.
I can go back to my first election.
You want to talk about elections being very much manipulated.
U.S. Journalist Arrested in Ukraine00:09:12
You'll be in jail, too.
It's too late, Ron.
That statute of limitation.
You can't talk about what they did to you.
Well, our second and last story today is something that's extremely disturbing.
And this is an American, a Chilean-American journalist.
He holds an American passport.
He was reporting on the Ukraine war from Kharkov in eastern Ukraine.
And he had a different take.
His take was, I would say, similar.
I listened to his broadcast.
His take was, I would say, similar to Colonel McGregor, similar to Scott Ritter, similar to those who offered a different perspective than the mainstream perspective.
Ukraine is winning.
Ukraine is right.
Ukraine has done nothing wrong.
And Russia is completely 1,000% to blame.
That is sort of the tone of his.
And we've seen it in many, many alternative journalists.
Well, what happened to Gonzalo Lira was that he was arrested last year by the Ukrainian secret police and held for a while.
Then he was released, but he was released under house arrest.
Now, he continued to make his videos and continued to report on the war.
You might say that was perhaps not the wisest choice given the circumstances, but we've been told that this is our democratic partner.
They have our values.
So he kept doing it, and he was arrested again several weeks ago, and he disappeared for several weeks.
He finally resurfaced in a very dramatic way, Dr. Paul, a couple of days ago.
He made a 25-tweet thread where he detailed everything that happened to him while he was being held, including torture, in very great detail.
And he decided he was going to skip his court date because he had been subject to torture and try to sneak out of the country into Hungary and ask for asylum.
It seems as if he was not successful in doing that and may have been picked up again by the Ukrainians.
The other day we mentioned that they might be setting up to put some blame on Ukraine for the failure of the war.
Although, yes, they have a lot, a lot of blame to go, but so does NATO, and both sides will have room for blame.
But they could be blamed, but right now, this information, if it gets out, it brings out, you know, when you talk about this, it wasn't really, it still isn't going to exactly where some of the leadership in Ukraine, what their political positions were over the decades, and many, many years, they're not exactly libertarians.
So if more of that came out, maybe, but I don't think, I'm not holding my breath on that because people will still paint it.
And right now, it looks like there was even an announcement this morning about Biden, oh no, I was going to say Biden wanting to say more money.
No, he wants to send it to Taiwan.
His addition, money to Taiwan.
It's just money, Dr. Paul.
Print it up.
But here's a little bit more from the zero-hedge write-up of what's happened to Gonzalo.
He said, Chilean-American blogger Gonzalo Lira, who was initially detained by Ukrainian intelligence in May for, quote, pro-Russia sympathies, has reportedly been arrested as he was trying to make his way out of Ukraine into Hungary.
His crime, publishing YouTube videos, critical of the war and the U.S.-Kiev NATO stance.
So he had an opinion in Ukraine of the war that was not the official opinion, and therefore he was arrested.
And here's a couple of tweets from his very long thread that came out when he resurfaced, I believe, on Monday.
He says, I'm posting this thread just as I'm getting close to the border checkpoint.
I'm also posting videos on the two channels I have access to.
If you don't hear from me in the next 12 hours, well, I'm on my way to a labor camp.
Wish me luck.
And Elon Musk commented saying troubling posts.
And what did he find troubling?
We'll go to the next one.
This is some details that Gonzalo Lear put out on his imprisonment.
He said, once inside the Saizo prison, I was tortured in two of the four cells I was in by the other prisoners.
Guards never beat prisoners.
They outsource torture to the other prisoners.
One prisoner actually apologized to me, telling me he had no choice.
He wasn't lying.
I understood.
He goes on to say, I got a cracked rib in my first cell, but it wasn't too bad.
The worst stretch was in my fourth cell.
From 1 p.m. on June 21st until 7 p.m. the next day, 30 hours, I was beaten and sleep deprived, my arms twisted the wrong way around at the shoulders, and generally beaten pretty bad.
So he's beat up in a Ukrainian prison for the crime of journalism.
And here's the kicker, Dr. Paul.
The U.S. government, despite admitting that they know about the situation, has not lifted a finger for this American citizen.
Put on that last clip and play the whole one because this was a gentleman that you and I met when we were in D.C. in January.
Very good young journalist who had the courage to ask the State Department spokesman about it.
If he can do that last, here we go.
You want to put your, there we go.
Yeah.
Cosgrove with the Gray Zone.
So back in May, I asked you about Gonzalo Lear if he was the U.S. citizen arrested in Ukraine for posting dissident content online.
And you told me the State Department was aware of his arrest in May.
And we learned last night through a series of tweets by him that he had been tortured in the Ukrainian prison and he was now on a motorcycle with a broken rib trying to flee to the Hungarian border.
And so I'm wondering, you know, if this is true, given the State Department knew of his arrest and his detention, how has this been allowed to occur?
We have a U.S. citizen being arrested, being detained and perhaps tortured in the prison of one of our strongest allies.
Well, you lost me with the perhaps and the if this is true.
I think I'd want to verify those reports before I commented on it.
Alex, go ahead.
Is the Department of Work is the State Department investigating?
I just want to verify anything before I comment.
Go ahead, Alex.
So rather than being outraged, rather of saying, we're going to get to the bottom of this, no American should be treated that way overseas.
He says, basically, I don't believe you, is what he said.
You know, the family after his first arrest in May had a comment about what was going on, and the family and supporters called it a kangaroo court.
And I got to thinking, yeah, you know, America is a great place, and we have a great constitution.
And there was a time when the judicial system was reasonable, and we were supposed to be setting an example on how you should try people.
But unfortunately, it looks like we have made it maybe influencer or gave them assurances.
Oh, that's about the way we do it, too.
We have a kangaroo court coup, too, and put up all these things.
But you have to be careful on that, of course, because you could get canceled by talking like that.
Well, I just wanted to throw this one out because, and it seems like it's unrelated, but as we say, they could definitely have called.
We've given him $150 billion.
They could have said, hey, this is an American over here.
He's a journalist.
You may not like what he's reporting, but stop torturing him at least, please.
We have some levers.
But they didn't intervene for his release.
What they did do, if we can put that in that last clip up, and I just want to show the contrast between what the State Department does for an American versus someone overseas.
Here is a statement from President Biden on the occasion of Nigeria's Independence Day.
This is a statement of the Biden administration demanding the release of their president who's been overthrown recently in a coup.
The merits of that are absolutely irrelevant to our situation.
It is that the White House will intervene for some guy over in Niger, but they won't lift a finger for an American who's being tortured.
That's disgusting.
He's thinking more about solidification of the empire, and there's a little weak spot here.
We better buckle down and protect our protect our power.
Well, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul.
And if you watched our show yesterday with Colonel Doug McGregor, I think you'll agree that it was a terrific show.
He's promised that when he speaks at our conference next month, he's going to talk about the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
I can't wait to hear that.
You're going to want to hear it too and listen to him live.
I will put a link in here where you can get your tickets.
Co-C Doug McGregor, Dr. Paul, and the rest of our great speakers live in D.C. on September 2nd.
It's going to be a real blast, and you will not want to miss it.
Back to you, Dr. Very good.
You know, the story, the sad story of Lyra and the tortures was horrible.
Of course, our participation in that was when the country was supercharged up about terrorism, you know, after 9-11, and we had the secret prisons and all.
Four Horsemen Discussion00:02:39
And some people say that, you know, there's still that going on.
We just don't torture people out in the open or there's no knowledge of it.
And, of course, there are the secret prisons.
I believe that to be the case, but there's very little written about that.
But, you know, the Lyra case shouldn't surprise us of our neglect because, you know, the extreme of, look at what they've done to Assange.
You know, if they can do that to Assange, they can do it to anybody.
It's buckle down, obey the law, and we will tell you what's right.
You can have your freedom of speech all you want as long as we approve your speech.
I can think of a better way.
I would suggest a lot of times I'd be asked at a conference where I was a speaker.
They might say, well, what do we do?
What do we do?
I said, it's a mess.
It's big.
It's very difficult.
And people ought to be educated on what a free society is all about.
But in the meantime, what we could do is to try to work our way out.
And even in the case that we were talking about today on Trump, we ought to read the Constitution.
It's helpful.
It's not the absolute end of it to all end because there's a way the Constitution gets changed.
But the guidelines for now are we're supposed to follow.
And you know what often didn't baffle me but annoyed me was I looked around and I thought, they're doing this outrageous, unconstitutional war that's going on, unconstitutional money, all these things going on.
And I thought, why in the world they've taken that oath of office?
And I was looking around.
I think maybe I could find about six people who thought we should take it seriously.
I mean, I was told point blank, the part of the Constitution that's supposed to guide us, that's old-fashioned.
And that's the way they act, and that's how it happens.
And the court system right now is one of the biggest nemesis we have.
We have to deal with.
So I think, though, there's a lot of people waking up, and that's a responsibility.
We assume that we will do our best to wake people up on what's really going on because the problems aren't complicated.
It's the use of force, illegal force, and telling people how to live and how to run their lives and how to run the economy and how to get along with other countries.
And it means one simple rule.
Don't ever use force to do this.
Offensive force to go in and say, you will do it our way.
No, we won't get to that answer.
People have to come around to thinking that the non-aggression principle is worth thinking about.