All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
35:34
'Speaker Jordan' And The Ukraine Money Pit

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is the first to throw his hat in the ring to replace Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker, as Ukraine money laundromat supporters on both sides of the aisle have gone full panic mode. Will McCarthy's defenestration signal the end of "Project Ukraine" in the US Congress? Also today, UK "out of weapons" for Ukraine and global weapons stocks are in free-fall.

|

Time Text
Gates' Powerful Prediction 00:11:50
With us today is a thunderstorm and our co-host Daniel Meg Adams.
That should be my sound that comes out when you introduce me to the middle.
That's my answer.
I'm like a rocket.
This is going to be a good program.
So what are we going to talk about today?
What's big in the news, other than our thunderstorms and a little bit of rain we didn't have for eight months, which is sort of exciting.
I had predicted that it would rain again.
And then I predicted also we're going to get too much spring sometimes.
But anyway, we don't have a whole lot of control over the weather.
But we think that we could possibly have a tee bit of influence on what's going on in public affairs.
But then I'm blonde.
Then I am brought back down to earth and realize we'll try and we don't know.
Maybe we will.
But one thing for sure, it deserves some attention.
And yesterday, they got our attention.
They got attention to the country and probably lack of attention for 90% of the people because they really didn't care what was going on.
It was a big deal, you know, kicking out the Speaker of the House, you know, and having an empty seat there.
First time, I guess, in history that they have done this.
And this is, it's very, very, definitely because they're in untreasured water because they have to decide who should run things in between.
They'll work it out, though.
But the big thing is, is what will happen to policy?
And you and I have gone back and forth on the pros and cons of what they were doing.
And we didn't even have a vote, but we talked about as if we did.
What would happen?
What would happen if this, you know, if he, if they remove Gates, and they did, and there was one big thunderclap.
Yeah, and that was it.
But this is ongoing.
They'll have to find somebody.
And I have to admit, I, you know, look at all the arguments of the stupidity of the whole thing and think, why would eight people go along and put something on the plotter to the Democrat?
And then I look at what their positions are and saying, we have to get their attention.
Well, that's what I try to do all the time.
Get the attention that, yeah, these are all important things, but we're bankrupt and we ought to do something.
And so I'm back and forth, but I'm hard to satisfy because I see so often that there's that interventionism, which is a term I use for all government intervening in our lives, in the world, and whatnot.
It's very, very powerful.
They're in charge.
And I'm always looking for an opening.
Are they going to cut back on interventionism?
And, you know, over the years, you know, you elect new presidents, and they're supposed to do this.
And, of course, the great disappointment was, I guess it was 68.
Nixon was elected to bring some common sense to foreign policy.
And the tragedy of that was 30-some thousand Americans were still killed.
So that, you know, gets my attention about not being overly optimistic.
But to do nothing, I don't think we're doing that.
But there are days when I think maybe if they close Washington for one year, not a whole lot of people would suffer.
Maybe someone would have to go out and do real work.
Yeah, that might be the case.
But there are changes, and it remains to be seen.
And I think we should keep discussing it and pointing out the shortcomings when we spot them.
Yeah, we were in a position yesterday where the action hadn't happened, so we were kind of trying to look ahead and see what we might expect.
There were definitely some fireworks, and I could have put some videos up.
There were some great videos.
There was some great speech by Thomas Massey.
made a very passionate argument against getting rid of McCarthy and it made a lot of sense.
Matt Gates, I have to say, was on fire.
He was in terms of just a very, very powerful orator.
I think he was that yesterday.
He must have taken some extra, I don't know what, energy pills or something because he was, there were some very good speeches.
But ultimately, although it got more Republican votes than I thought it would, it ultimately came down to the Democrats and they decided at some point, we don't know exactly what happened behind the scenes, but at some point they decided, and I don't think they made the decision for the country, I think they decided this will be better for the Democrats if we sign on and if we vote against the Speaker.
And that's ultimately what happens.
And I think, I don't know, I'm guessing, it's probably a good guess, but I'm thinking that they may be writing on this idea that look at these Republicans.
They can't even govern themselves.
We're going into an election season and they're busy cutting each other's heads off.
We're the people that show that we can govern.
Look, we had Pelosi in this seat forever.
And we never got rid of her.
So that may be what they're counting on.
But ultimately, as you say, first time ever they nuked a speaker.
You know, I work on the assumption that there's a lot of people behind the scenes pulling the strings.
And that I pay attention when somebody talks about the single party, the one-party system that we have.
And I get a lot of attention and applause when I mentioned to a group that they said, what would you do about having a third party?
And I said, I'll tell you what, I'm looking for a second party.
And I do firmly believe that there are powerful people.
It might not be as a neat little package as some people see the deep state, but there's a group of people, very wealthy, and they existed when they were writing the income tax and the Federal Reserve System.
So that is out there.
At the same time, you always hope that they lost control.
And the next speaker, see, right now, I would say there's nothing personally, since I didn't know McCarthy.
You know, I think he got there, he probably played a little politics with the power brokers.
And now we have Jordan there.
He probably knows them all, but to say, well, he had the stamp of approval, well, it reminds me same because I don't think it's absolute.
I don't think they control every single thing.
But when it comes to big things like going to war and spending money and running the budgets and who are they going to finance for the president's rates, they're very much involved.
But one thing is, he comes across, and one thing encouraging for me is Thomas Massey is involved.
And you say, some people say, yeah, he should stay away from that.
He's going to be tempted.
But no, we know him well.
And he's going to do his darndest to stick to the principles of liberty and let us know what's really going on.
And I think that's a big plus for us.
Yeah, well, one bit of breaking news when we were just getting into the studio this morning was, as you suggested a second ago, Jim Jordan's announcement that he is going to put his hat in the ring.
He's the first one.
We can actually put that first clip up because it's from Politico and it happened just a few minutes ago.
Jordan becomes first to announce run for speaker.
Now he's played his cards carefully, Dr. Paul, because he supported McCarthy throughout the process.
He never signed on with Gates.
He's been a supporter of McCarthy.
He's been, to my mind, at least, kind of a bridge between the more conservative factions and the more mainstream factions because he did support McCarthy.
Well, he's put his hat in the ring now that McCarthy is gone.
And I think, in a way, that might be soothing because, as we mentioned yesterday, Marjorie Taylor Green said, Okay, this is fine, but what's your plan?
What's going to happen after you get rid of him?
Now, this looks like they have a bit of a plan, and I think it's probably a good sign that Massey, who, as we discussed, was extremely opposed to the process of getting rid of McCarthy.
This is what he tweeted right after Jordan announced, if we can put that up.
I support Jim Jordan for Speaker.
So, that is a very interesting development, I think.
And here's something even more.
I know it's going to take a second, but if you can put that bonus clip up, this is even more interesting now.
This just happened.
This tweet came out not long ago.
I know we've got to dig that one up because I changed my mind at the last minute.
But here we go: Matt Gates, my mentor, Jim Jordan, would be great, is what he said.
So, you possibly have, I know, Dr. Paul, you hate this stuff, but it is kind of interesting to me in a way you have a situation where you have someone stepping into the breach who might bridge the gap between two sides.
I don't know.
Well, I think that step is going to be more unifying than harmful.
Yeah.
Instead of Jordan inheriting all the shortcomings of maybe of Gates, actually, Gates coming through, he is respected by a lot of people with knowing what's going on.
It's tactics is really the question.
Should you do this now?
And should you, you know, threaten the closing down the government?
What are you going to do with helping or hurting the Democrats?
And so, I know, I think that's very good.
But, you know, one thing that they haven't talked about yet, they talk about the new speaker and whether it's Jordan.
I would say the little information we have so far and understanding the system, I would think that you're going to see Jordan become the speaker.
The one thing that they haven't asked about, which is the slight disappointment I have, it might be more as it grows, it might be more than slight, and that is Jordan in the position of investigating the criminals in the Department of Justice.
Yeah, I don't know if he's anybody that can even come close to his ability to understand it, to pursue it, and represent on the TV.
Because when he's Speaker, the House is just not the place to be the investigator.
So, I was wondering, and there's probably some others, I've heard some other ones speaking, there's some other good ones, but I think Jordan won that, but it's all as being the best investigator.
But that might be the reason they want him as Speaker.
But that's a different job.
But I'm interested to see what happens there.
No, that's a good point because he'll be just kind of the ringmaster as a speaker, whereas he's really in the trenches in the Judiciary Committee.
Well, you served for a while with Jordan.
Did you have any interaction or impressions?
Not very much.
And there wasn't, he came about, yeah, that's right, a couple years I was there.
Matter of fact, I probably never had a conversation.
We've been at functions together where we were both speakers.
But no, I didn't have much contact with him.
But you've developed kind of a view of him over the years.
Yeah, to me, even when he wasn't well known, I always had respect for his abilities.
That's a start.
What I want to do.
That isn't the end point.
You can have very intelligent criminals, too.
That's true, that's true.
Not suggesting that he is.
No, but maybe the rest of Congress.
Yeah.
Well, there are other things going on.
We're going to watch this.
I mean, I mean, we don't really have a dog in the race, but nevertheless, it's kind of interesting.
You know, maybe they'll do it on a first ballot and he'll come in and they'll, then it basically will be a non-issue.
Congress's Concerns Over Ukraine 00:11:38
Oh, the Republicans are shooting themselves in the head.
Well, no, we got a new guy right away.
That might be helpful.
But here's another thing that I wanted to bring up that's interesting: is that the Democrat decision to support the ouster of McCarthy wasn't automatic and was not without critics on the left.
Now, if you can put up this next clip, this is a journalist who writes, who's with MSNBC and all these other places, so you know where he's coming from.
He says something interesting, Dr. Paul.
He says, side note, but this seems to be not penetrating in some quarters.
Additional Ukraine funding is going to be extremely difficult.
Looking at the Republican candidates for Speaker, I have a tough time seeing any of them bringing Ukraine funding to the floor, even with strings.
So the Democrats are now kind of also having their own hangover saying, yeah, we got rid of him, but our big thing was money for Ukraine and money for the war.
And now it looks a lot less likely that that'll happen.
Yeah, they criticize the Republicans because they fight among themselves, they claim, more than the Democrats.
But the Democrats are still, they're divided on foreign policy, there's no doubt about it.
But they seem to have a greater amount of discipline.
But I don't admire that necessarily.
It's sort of like blackmail.
You know, if you don't do this, what we're going to go because they're all into politics.
We're going to go into your district.
You're not going to raise money next time.
So you toe the line.
So that's a problem, too.
Yeah.
Well, I guess we'll keep our eye on it and see what happens.
But I think we'll move on to our next segment, which I think we'll title Running Out of Dot, dot, dot, right?
Because all of a sudden, everything's running out.
And we both looked at the front page of antiwar.com, as we do every morning, and there was kind of an interesting juxtaposition of stories that led us to this idea for a segment, running out of dot, dot, dot.
Let's start it with this one.
Let's start it with this one clip.
Here we go.
Here is Rishi Sunak, the prime minister of the UK.
He looks like he's about to kiss Zelensky, but my guess is it's probably just a manly hug.
He says, we were the first country to send tanks to Kiev.
Now more than 10 others have followed.
We were the first country to agree to train Ukrainian pilots.
Now over a dozen others do so.
I say this to our allies: give Zelensky the tools.
The Ukrainians will finish the job.
That's how it started.
And now let's do how it's going is the next one.
The telegraph.
Britain has run out of arms to send Ukraine.
They run out.
And I would say a lot of what they had had a lot to do with what Americans do in selling weapons anyplace.
You know, they send the money over.
Yeah.
You know, another thing, and they end up with the money and then they buy.
You know, it's a gimmick.
So the military-industrial complex has not been wiped out yet.
It's available there.
But no, I found this whole thing, and I want to read a couple more because it's the front page for anti-war and it follows up on the theme of running out.
And the first one was Britain has run out of arms to give Ukraine.
Then the next one is interesting.
U.S. is running out of money to pay Ukraine to pay Ukrainian salaries, government salaries.
Just think of all the harm we did to our people and their civil liberties during the war we had here against the monsters that were trying to force us to take very dangerous medical treatment.
So that's running out of money.
But of course, that's my argument that things slow down about it.
So this might be a sign that they have to rethink things.
And this, to me, is something that ends war, you know, when you run out and run out of enthusiasm.
And of course, my conclusion to this, and there's a few other things, they might have weaponed all the weapons and all.
And I would see there as a, yes, but they've run out of common sense.
They need a little bit of common sense.
But there is none.
It's not.
But that, when you do that, then it's a big picture.
I think our foreign policy, this bipartisanship in foreign policy, it's fraying a little bit because there's more people resisting in both parties.
But no, we do not use common sense.
Well, where would you start?
How can you give people common sense?
Well, we should suggest that when they put their hand up and take an oath, you know, oaths are supposed to be important.
Because if you don't follow your oath when you're in a jury stand or talking to an FBI agent, it's like an oath and you can get into big trouble.
But in Congress, there's no trouble if you don't follow the oath of office.
You could start there, and then maybe we could change the foreign policy.
And even the founders, they weren't perfect even in the early years, but they were cautious and they certainly weren't like the interventions they have now.
But see, I don't think there's, if you have two extremes, one where there's no government and there's anarchy and they're running over and everybody's fighting whoever they want.
And the other one is to have too much interventionism, you know, where we're controlling everything.
And I would say our foreign policy, combined with our economic policy, our monetary policies, and all this nonsense is way over the top.
And if the group in Washington ever decided, well, we have to at least take a real step back from this, they could start by gleaning from the Constitution what is important.
And, you know, there was something I wrote years ago, and I'd have to reject exactly what I said, but they said, well, but the president's in charge of the foreign policy.
But you know, if you read it, there's very little that the president's in charge of.
He can't even start a war.
You know, he can't finance it.
It is so much is due to the Congress, and yet we've all turned that over.
So as long as that happens, interventionism is going to not be paid any attention to.
Yeah.
I mean, he has the broad outlines of the foreign policy, but it still has to, like you say, has to be funded.
But, you know, you just still, I mean, you think about the UK.
Here they are bragging about how great they are and how tough they are and what a great empire they were or whatever.
But then you have to question the wisdom.
We basically have run out of things we can give Ukraine.
So in other words, we have depleted our own military to the point where we can't give you another tank.
And we talked about it a couple of days ago.
They only have 40 left.
You know, the Ukrainians have already lost several thousand tanks and the UK only has 40.
And they still think there's some sort of a powerhouse.
So you do have to wonder about the wisdom of this.
But as you point out, let's do the next one.
They're not the only ones who seem to be now having a bit of a hangover after this drunken spending spree.
As you say, and this is from Dave DeCamp in anti-war, the U.S. is running out of money to pay Ukrainian government salaries.
Now, anyone looking at that headline would notice a number of things that are very wrong.
So you say, well, hang on a minute.
We're paying for Ukrainian government salaries?
Well, this is a Wall Street Journal article.
The U.S. will run out of money to pay for Ukrainian government salaries and services within the next month if Congress does not authorize more Ukraine aid, Wall Street Journal reported.
Most Americans would say, well, that sounds pretty good.
They should run out of the money for that.
And then it goes on to say the U.S. and Ukraine's other Western backers have been paying the salaries of about 850,000 civil servants in Ukraine.
So not only do we have trillions and trillions of deficit spending in the U.S. to fund our own bloated bureaucracy, we're also spending billions to fund their bloated bureaucracy.
But I'm sure they're all hardworking public servants.
But they have to follow up the question.
They're running out of money.
What are they going to do?
Well, we've been out of money, real money, for a long time.
That's no sweat.
And they don't talk about it because the American people will say, you mean we don't have any money in the bank?
No, they're just going to print paper money or use a computer.
And the fools around the world have decided it's the perfect currency.
Fiat money is wonderful.
There are no limits.
And that's the way they act.
But they never asked the question, where does the money come from?
But I wanted to mention one other thing that they've become patient with.
And they have become patience with, and they should get rid of the patience of Biden to make sure that Biden running out of patience with Biden's support for Ukraine.
You know, and that's a political thing going on in Congress right now.
And that's part of that, you know, in the Congress they're arguing over there.
So yeah, they're impatient with that, and that's good.
Yeah, yeah.
But I think what it also has done has really clarified the fact that this has become a political issue in the United States.
Now, Biden and his people have owned Project Ukraine.
And now that it's not going well, you know, what is it, the saying about, you know, success has many fathers, failure has one.
I forget how it goes.
But as you say, here is Biden.
This is from the Libertarian Institute.
And he's owning it.
And if we put that next one.
Actually, go ahead, one.
I skipped that one for the Wall Street Journal.
That was just a picture.
But go ahead to that one.
There we go.
Thank you.
President Joe Biden held a call with the leaders of several allied nations to stress that weapons shipments to Ukraine cannot end for any reason.
That almost sounds panicky, doesn't it?
Can't end for any reason.
Because if they end, I think the entire idiocy of this entire project, I think, will come to the focus.
But they're good planners.
You know, they have to look at the budget forward, and the arms manufacturers have to know what to do, and they get very nervous.
Even this thought that they're going to cut back, you know, made the stocks bounce all over the place.
But right now they're planning for the next war.
The conflict may be a real war.
Of course, I consider all this stuff real war.
But Taiwan is entering into this little debate.
And in the meantime, you may be running out of all this stuff, but I want to remind you, Americans, that Taiwan telling you to speed up the arms to Taiwan.
And there's where another breakdown is.
We finally get some people say, boy, that's right.
I didn't know about the history of Ukraine.
I didn't realize that we had a coup there and it was NATO that did the invasion and all this stuff.
But here, here they're already getting ready for the next one.
And I'd have to give them some credit if that's their goal.
They've achieved a whole lot because everybody seems like when they talk on the television, when they talk about cutting back and cutting back, they always add their blind support for more weapons to Taiwan because China is going to engulf them soon,
Russia's Defense Dilemma 00:12:01
Which may or may not be true, but I'll tell you what, if you're broke, hello,
everybody.
Sorry for the interruption that we have and we'd like to go back to the program because we were in the middle of this discussion about the significance of a new speaker of the house and we never realized that there was going to be a lot of noise.
But we don't know whether that noise was endorsement of the new speaker that they're going to have or just calling attention to it.
But they got our attention and we had to go off the air for a while, which was rather unique.
But we did have one item that we wanted to bring up that we didn't get to.
And that has to do how the changes in Washington, and they're very important, how it's affecting the deep state.
And I talked a little bit about that a few minutes ago, but also the military-industrial complex, because that is very important.
And I didn't realize how important, because we really saw a difference in what happened there.
Instantaneously, within 24 hours, when they see a new speaker coming and whatnot, that the stocks, they say, oh, it looks like it's going to be difficult getting the money.
I would say, yeah, but they'll probably end up getting it.
But anyway, the people who are in stocks, they react quickly, sometimes emotionally, and all of a sudden, Daniel, right out of clear blue, with all the noise, they sold off.
I will make a wild prediction.
They will come back.
Yeah, that Thunderbolt was something.
I don't know what's going on.
Maybe they don't like us doing this, but I don't know if our backed up, if we're booted up with our graphics, but if we can put that one up, defense stocks fall as paralyzed house with no speaker puts Ukraine aid at risk.
So all the problems we have, Dr. Paul, all the problems with the budget, all the problems we have with the border, everything knows all about putting U.S. Ukraine aid at risk.
But this is interesting because there are some charts showing what happened as McCarthy was booted out of his chair.
And let's look at a couple of them.
This is Greinmetal, German arms manufacturer.
You saw that right there.
Boom.
Dropped 4.8%.
Go to the next one.
You had the Swedish aerospace company Saab fell 3% right as Jordan was booted.
And do another one.
This is the British BAE systems.
They slid 3.5%.
So our European allies are getting nervous, but there's something happening in the U.S. too.
If you go to that next one, in the U.S., uncertainty over funding will likely weigh on defense stocks.
The SP 500 Aerospace and Defense Index has been running into resistance for much of this year.
And you see less dramatic immediately following the announcement that the speaker's chair was empty, but nevertheless, you're seeing a dip.
So you always say, you always watch the markets rather than the talking heads.
And it looks like the markets are speaking.
Yeah, it's telling us a lot.
But you know what?
It also tells us that the Republican leader in the Senate is pretty astute.
You remember what he said when this was coming out?
This is the most important thing that all Americans are concerned about is will the money be there?
And the slightest little question that's come up, of course, they think it's a big question because they're selling stocks and somebody might lose some money over that, which is okay.
But that to me also is an indication how distorted markets are.
You know, if we didn't have to have perpetual enemies, you can't say we have perpetual war because they've been able to avoid the hot war.
I mean, this is good, but it's still a big deal because whether there's troops on the ground or whatever, when you say, well, we might not give you as much money as you got before, and we don't know whether it's coming.
So it indicates it's artificial, it's malinvestment, it's mischief, it's inflationary, all these things.
And that's why the whole thing of the foreign policy interventionism and the manipulation that we go through with economic planning and the threats that we can put on people with sanctions and internationally interference with currency transactions.
This is the reason that there's a growing skepticism with us.
It is certainly in the monetary system that we recognize it.
And it'll be in the military foreign policy as well.
Because I think that's a hint of what's happening.
What if the next day they go and cut the DOD budget 50%?
Yeah, that'd be a start.
In reality, it gets cut because they'll inflate.
And the value goes down.
It's really a cut, but that's the invisible way of cutting the spending.
It also cuts salaries and everything else.
Very dangerous situation.
It might be the big one rather than getting the money for Ukraine.
Wow.
Well, the end sentence, the conclusion of the article on Zero Hedge, I first read it.
It looks like something that you could have written, if we can put that up, because I think it really captures what's happening right now.
Let me get that next one.
Here we go.
Washington's endless stream of taxpayer funds to Ukraine has benefited the military-industrial complex.
Now it appears that the pipeline of easy money is in question due to the ouster of McCarthy, that easy money you always talk about, easy money.
It looks like the easy money is gone.
We need to make it hard money.
Hard money, yeah.
Hard money is right.
I'm going to close out if you think we're ready.
And I just had a couple of clips that at the very end struck me because I've talked a lot about the callous attitude like people like Lindsey Graham.
It's the best money we ever spent taking on Russia.
You know, this idea that the lives in Ukraine mean nothing.
And here are a couple of people that literally are saying that.
This is the, put that next one up if you can.
This is the defense minister of the Netherlands of Holland.
Now listen to this.
Her name is Kaisa Ahlingren.
She says, supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to ensure that Russia and his regime do not pose a threat to the NATO alliance.
And Lord Bebo was the one who tweeted this.
He said, well, Ukrainians are a cheap way to resist Russia.
And to me, that's just unbelievably disgusting to view a half a million, 500,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers as just a cheap way of hurting Russia.
But she's not alone.
Here's the Washington Post.
Someone else tweeted this underneath it.
Here's a Washington Post.
Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall at relatively low cost other than for the Ukrainians.
And how sick and callous that is.
And the last one I have, Dr. Paul, is from the, if you can put that last one up.
This is a U.S. government and military industrial complex funded quote-unquote think tank.
Here's what they conclude.
It's costing us peanuts for the U.S. to defeat Russia.
So that's the idea.
These dead, littering the battlefield with blood and bodies are just peanuts.
They're just a cheap way of hitting at Russia.
And I'll tell you, Dr. Paul, I find that absolutely disgusting.
That is awful.
This thing about Lindsey Graham, it is so aggravating.
But I oftentimes, almost usually under these circumstances, I try to figure out why, why, why.
What's their thought processes?
Is it dedication to a philosophy they see as being very positive?
Is it strictly the money issue that they're owned by these people and that's their job?
That's why they were elected?
Or are they just totally deceived into believing what is right and wrong?
But you can't say, well, they're just stupid.
If they have these goals, they're very smart, but they're using their abilities to do evil.
And that gets very confusing because there's no pat answer.
Because if you look at all the people who go along with Graham, they can't be motivated by the same thing.
Some is pure patriotism.
Most support for wars comes from, you know, blind patriotism, that if you're not supporting the troops and you don't support our mission, therefore you're un-American, unpatriotic.
And I'll bet you even the people in the military-industrial complex claim they are great patriots.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Well, put it that last final clip, my final word now.
I just wanted to throw that out there.
But don't forget, limited supplies and a limited time offer of Dr. Paul's new book, The Great Surreptitious Coup, as our thank you for a contribution to the fall fundraising drive of the Ron Paul Institute, which is home of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, conferences, students, seminars, and more.
I will include a description of how you can make a donation to the Ron Paul Institute and get Dr. Paul's terrific new book as a thank you.
The only place you can get it is here, and it is for a limited time.
And Dr. Paul and I looked at those boxes.
The supplies are getting even more limited, so we'll see what happens.
Uh-oh.
Over to you.
Very good.
And I myself, well, I'll give a good bit of thank you for our viewers and tuning in.
Even under the circumstances we had today, we had a few interruptions, calling attention to what's going on, a lot of thunder going on.
But we did get our program done, and we thank you for your patience.
But these issues are very important, but I think this whole idea of speakership sounds mundane.
And when you look at the very big picture of worldwide bankruptcy and World War III, it's minor.
But all these things add up to a problem.
There are some people with attitudes that sort of encourage this.
They see no danger and they see all the danger.
And they say, yes, Ron, we agree with you.
There's a great deal of danger.
If we don't do what we want to do, we're the only ones who can stop this.
We need to show them how tough we are.
We'll punish people who don't obey.
And we want them to be part of and join us in our coup and taking over and the control of NATO and Western civilization.
Well, they're making a mess out of things.
And that is why we have to continue this fight for liberty and freedom and do our job in promoting that cause.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection