The White House is becoming desperate to continue funding for its "Plan Ukraine," claiming that the money will run out in just three weeks' time. Zelensky himself has been summoned by Senate Majority Leader Schumer to make the case for more funding in a behind-the-doors classified briefing to Senators. Republicans are trying to tie funding to US border security. Aldo today: The Pentagon can't account for 61 percent of four trillion in assets. By design?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Your voice is loud and clear.
I'm getting back.
Keep it that way.
I'm getting there.
I might need some help.
So we're going to talk about things that might make a person choke on, you know.
And that would be legitimate because they're down there.
They don't have much difficulty.
They have a lot of people.
There's 100 people, not quite, but 100 people in the Senate and almost full house in the House.
And they're all well-educated.
And sometimes they fib.
But all they have to do is spend money and balance the budget.
All they have to do is they don't even have to think because they took an oath of office and all the hard work's been done.
They know exactly what they're allowed to do.
So it should be a pretty easy job.
But we're going to talk about the different factions and the lack of success in budgeting.
But I think we dealt with that a few years back when I was in Congress.
We tried to deal with this.
So it's nothing new.
It's probably been there since the beginning of our country.
But it's out of control now.
And the factions are lining up.
People are getting nervous.
And they won't admit a couple things.
And I've talked about this for quite a while, that the chaos comes from the bankruptcy.
You know, there's a moral bankruptcy and a financial bankruptcy.
It's not so easy just to do whatever we want.
LBJ, in a way, really made it popular.
Guns and butter, we can do that, no problems.
And yeah, we did have a few problems in the 70s, as I recall.
Guns and butter, but they never get discouraged.
They keep thinking they can do it.
Well, it's an emergency, COVID.
What if we don't get hundreds of thousands of people involved and take care of everybody and practice in medicine?
So we have to do it.
This is a significant emergency.
And all of a sudden, they print a lot of money.
And we've had some consequences from that as well.
So this is going on.
But right now, they're facing deadlines.
They had to have a continuing resolution already.
And they have to finish up the year.
They're going to have to come up with a budget.
And it's virtually impossible under these circumstances.
But they have to deal with first, how do we get all our money and not get blamed for spending money?
And we don't get blamed for doing it.
And who behind the scenes really will make the final decisions?
Will there be any fear-mongering and people scared?
Oh, I'm going to lose my Social Security check.
That'll continue.
We're certain of that.
And yet today, we have to deal with the budget more specifically.
You know, the Pentagon needs the money.
The domestic people need the money.
But we want to talk a little bit about an article on responsible statescraft.
And Responsible Statescraft came out with a very good article on it.
And the title sort of gives you a hint on the tone.
And I've tried to express it already.
The administration issued Sky is Falling Letter on Ukraine aid.
So that's their big issue, Ukraine aid.
And they're scaring it.
And the budget office sent the letter for the administration and said, we really need this.
Even though most people now, even those who still spout support for Ukraine and The winning of the war, even though that's out there, even those who say that don't really believe it.
So they're not up to admitting it, but it also gives them always a reason to make sure we put pressure on those chiseling congressmen who won't vote and go along with this.
So they're going to put the pressure on them.
And there's a lot of fighting going on, and it's going to get worse.
They're not going to have easy sailing.
I don't imagine in the next couple weeks when they really have to pass a budget.
They're not going to pass that budget a whole.
There's going to be a lot of Mickey Mousing around on this.
And that'll be a big issue because it has financial ramifications, political ramifications, and it also has stock market ramification.
The whole thing is involved.
And yet, there will not be an admission.
Oh, yeah, yeah, we know.
We want to cut the spending.
We know that that isn't good.
But they don't believe it.
Or they would do something about it if they realize the danger and that someday everybody's going to recognize that spending, like they finally did in Argentina.
They had to do something to try to fix it.
So anyway, Daniel, we're filled with information, but we're not able quite to guarantee solutions because the solutions we have and the changes that we would like to see just aren't available to the public now to accept because somebody will think they're not giving me a fair deal and I am not going to go along with it.
Yeah, and this is the headline you mentioned, Dr. Paul, if you put that up, that first clip.
This is Responsible Statecraft, and it's a pretty poignant picture that they're adding with it.
Biden and Zelensky walking along, I don't know, maybe along the seashore or something.
But the headline, as you say, the sky is falling.
Officials say no more money for Ukraine.
And what that means is $100 and some billion dollars plus a few extra authorizations have now come to the end.
I think I read that 97% of the authorized money has been appropriated.
And so if you do that next one, this is Shalanda Young.
She's the director of the OMB.
I guess that's Stockman's old job, right?
Shalanda wrote a letter to the administration saying, we are out of money to support Ukraine in this fight.
This isn't a next year problem, she said.
The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is now.
It's time for Congress to act.
Now, that looks a little more political than I would suspect an OMB director would write.
I don't know, Dr. Paul, maybe I'm just naive.
Seems like they should be just kind of doing the numbers rather than politicking.
But what she's saying is they have not passed this emergency supplemental war appropriations for Ukraine.
We're out of money for Ukraine.
We've got to get them money immediately because in three weeks, boom, it's all done.
Not a penny's left for Ukraine.
So I think it smacks a little bit of desperation on the part of the administration because we have had a slew, a series of bad news pieces about Ukraine.
Now, these are things that are not surprising to our viewers because our viewers are very intelligent and they have followed, as we have, people like Colonel McGregor and so many others who have said from the beginning, this is a failed enterprise.
Ukraine cannot win.
This is like David taking on Goliath.
Cannot win.
This will never go well.
But of course, the neocons in DC, Dr. Paul, said, we can do it.
We can take down Russia.
Who cares?
Remember, even Lindsey Graham says, this is the best money we've ever spent.
Ukrainians are dying, and the Russians are getting weak.
And that's a cynical view.
Well, Americans have woken up to this, and we've followed the numbers.
Americans are opposed to more spending across the board.
Republicans and Democrats opposed to more spending on Ukraine.
Nevertheless, these people never admit that they're wrong.
And so now they're desperate for more money.
Now, Republicans, being Republicans, don't just stand up and say, hey, America doesn't want this.
No way, Jose, we're out.
No, they say, hmm, what can we get for this?
What can we get if we give them a yes vote and send another $100 billion or $60 billion to Ukraine?
Let's get something for it.
That's how they think.
And back to the director of OMB.
She said, and you essentially have repeated what she said.
Director Young argues the remaining funds are rapidly running out.
You know, the fear thing.
My thoughts when I read that, I said, why is she saying that they're running out?
They've run out of those funds a long time ago.
They didn't even have the funds when they started the dumb war.
But that is why, you know, the great facilitator who can print money out of fear, they're the counterfeiters.
That is why, you know, this whole argument that foreign policy is separate from economic policy, you just can't do it because all the money is spent has to be printed at this rate.
And, you know, it's going up.
This year, the numbers, even when I condition myself for this, you know, the amount of debt that's going to increase this year is astounding.
I mean, trillions and trillions of dollars now are just rapidly, it's on an exponential curve.
And I don't think they can reverse that.
And even though you have days of up and down where the markets don't look real bad, but you know, the stock market has been doing very, very well, but that just might be desperation.
What else are we going to do with it?
And I know that this is not going to end.
I mean, like I said, the people who are really pulling the strings, they know, you know, they probably don't even know McGregor's name.
They're not going to pay much attention to him and say, well, you know, here, here, he was saying something a long time ago, and that came true.
But a lot of people have.
And this has been our argument all along: is prevention is announced that prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And if you just prevent this stuff, why do we do it?
And that again is the pressure.
Who runs the show?
It's naivety.
It's ignorance.
It's they don't care.
Some of them even enjoy the chaos because we have to reform the system.
And we need much, much better organized fascism than we have on these people, allowing people to have an influence on the budget.
And the mess continues.
But I think it's going to unwind to the point where some major decisions will have to be made.
And they're not going to be very comfortable because the markets will overwhelm eventually and cut us off from our empire and our ability to use the reserve currency of the world to finance anything we want.
Yeah, well, you know, the neocons operate sort of on this principle of the triumph of the will.
If we will it, we can do it.
We can do anything.
But, you know, I was just thinking when you made your last statement, you're talking about, yeah, well, we can print money.
We can print money.
And that's what they've done so far.
But you can't print shells.
You can't print tanks.
You can't print ammunition.
And that reminds me of what happened just a couple of days ago.
Lloyd Austin went to Ukraine.
He met with General Zeluzhny, who was the head of the armed forces of Ukraine.
He's like the joint chief's chairman, I guess, in a way.
So he met with Zeluzhny and Zeluzhny said, hey, Austin, we can still win this man, but we need 17 million shells.
And so Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Nevertheless, even he must have scratched his head because the entire manufacturing capacity in the United States for shells is about 350,000 per year.
We are literally out of shells.
If you remember when the Israel thing happened, we grabbed a bunch of shells from Ukraine and took them over to Israel to let them bomb the Palestinians because there are no shells.
So we can only make about 300,000 a year.
And Zeluzhny says, hey, I need 17 million shells.
So this is where the rubber meets the road.
You can, for a while, as you say, print money, artificially create money, but it doesn't work in the real world.
You can't print shells.
And this is what we're seeing.
We're seeing the neocon triumph of the will unfolding and basically decomposing before us.
And the old analog world of building things and tanks and shells is now reasserting itself to the forefront.
And that's, I think, the end of Ukraine.
You know, the Quincy Institute related with the responsible statecraft, the article we read came from responsible statecraft.
But the Quincy Institute, they were quoting Bill Hartong.
Oh, yeah.
And he recently wrote, what I'm going to address is the subject, this is a good jobs program.
Everybody's employed.
I've hit it that all the time because nobody seems to care as long as they get a check.
But jobs, the jobs report today, terrible.
And then back a month ago, they revised.
So the real significant evidence of the downturn and the recession that must come, according to Austrian theory, is it has to come to rectify all the mistakes, the inflationary mistakes, the spending, the debt, and that sort of thing.
And he wrote in Hartong had written an RS foreign, wrote an RS, foreign military is not an effective jobs program.
He was refuting that.
And this is a closed quote from Hartong.
There are many ways to create more and better jobs without resorting to increased weapons spending.
Virtually any form of government, I have a question on this a little bit, virtually any form of government outlay or even tax cut yield better employment.
He was doing a quality.
This is the worst jobs program.
But anyway, then I would my suggestion, yeah, there are other ways that are more efficient.
Pentagon's Border Budget Blues00:13:02
Let the people keep their money.
Get rid of the taxes.
Believe me, that would handle it.
And that's what happened in 1921 when they had their depression.
They just said, well, take care of it.
You got your bankruptcy, deal with it.
And it didn't last very long.
But this is so attractive, you know, to say it's a jobs program.
People will do well.
And they keep equating the creation of money as an answer.
But it's the creation of wealth that matters.
And we have gradually, steadily, over 100 years, the wealth that we had accumulated and built into the system.
And even though it was recognizable, people were saying, well, we're king of the hill.
We have the empire and we have the dollars.
But I tell you what, the wealth is running out of it.
So they're talking about wealth.
Yes, they can keep printing this money, but it will not substitute for real wealth, even if they think they have to fight more wars with it.
So in a way, the market, fortunately, is going to work in our favor that they just can't perpetuate these wars.
And that's one of the major fights they have over here, because there's some in the House of Representatives that are sick and tired of sending more money to Ukraine.
There's a lot.
And if you pull the Americans, basically everyone.
Yeah, there you go.
But here, as I mentioned early on, Dr. Paul, here's the Republicans' brilliant idea.
Okay, the Democrats want this money to go to Ukraine so bad.
What can we get for it?
Rather than saying, you know what, here's a win, let's say no.
Let's just say no.
You can't have it.
We're not voting for it.
So put this next up.
Here's the brilliant Republican idea.
And this goes along with it.
You always talk about compromise.
Oh, I'll give you some of what you want if I get what I want.
No principle.
Now here's Chip Roy.
We're not picking on him necessarily.
But on this, he basically dovetails with Speaker Johnson.
They both have the idea that we are not going to talk about Ukraine funding unless we talk about border funding.
So tying the two together, and here's Chip Roy.
He says, if the word Ukraine is uttered on the House of Representatives floor before we have secured the border, that's an utter fail by Republicans.
And he's quoting Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, who says the only way we're going to get a result is if we will not give Ukraine money unless it's completely tied on a month-to-month basis to a reduction in the number of people crossing the border.
Where did they get this brilliant idea that American Republicans and Americans in general, if they hear, hey, we're going to spend a few billion on the border, but let us spend another $60 billion on Ukraine, which Republicans are going to jump up and say, this sounds great.
This is a great idea.
Spend it in both places.
Yeah, spend it in both.
Yeah.
I mean, this is just the most hairbrained thing I've ever heard.
Well, they're going to continue to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, and unfortunately, it has worked rather well.
But you've mentioned the number of people who really are disgusted with sending more money to Ukraine.
The numbers are growing.
I saw the change occur in the 1960s when it was sacred to just vote for everything because you had to support the troops.
And even when Nixon was elected, it was so disgusting.
The killing and the bombing accelerated.
He was elected to stop the war.
That's the reason he should have been impeached, not for that other stuff that he was getting messed up in.
Well, let me be going out on a ledge here, Dr. Paul, but I actually, in a way, think that this serves the interests of both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.
If this dies, say, for example, they cannot agree to this agreement, a border for this and that and the other on Ukraine.
I think actually both parties would be happy because both of them would like to see Ukraine behind them.
It's just been an albatross around their necks.
They're unhappy with it.
It's a failed operation.
It's a total failure.
Everyone knows it, even the Washington Post, and I have the headline I'm going to say.
Because the Republicans will be able to go back to the constituents and say, we blocked the funding for Ukraine.
And Democrats will say, we did everything we could to get the money for Ukraine.
Those evil Republicans blocked it.
They don't care about democracy.
So both of them will come away in their minds, I think, with a winning hand.
And at the end of the day, no one's going to be talking about Ukraine anymore.
So I could be wrong, but that's just a suspicion I have.
Well, even the Senate recognizes that they're not going to get the money, and they're positive we're going to have a vote, and we know we can't win it.
But they're conditioning people, because when things go badly, then they see they wouldn't give us the money.
Exactly.
Not our fault.
Don't blame us.
But I'm going to throw a couple of other clips as we finish out this topic.
If you could put the next one up.
Now, this is interesting.
Sanders is not necessarily known as a portrait in courage despite his earlier reputation.
Nevertheless, he's finally spoken up.
He said, in a break with Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, Senator Bernie Sanders announced Monday evening that he would vote against a supplemental spending bill to provide emergency military aid to Israel and Ukraine.
So he's a no.
That's kind of a surprise because he has not been very strong about this.
But here's a couple of other things, Dr. Paul, a couple of headlines about Ukraine disintegrating.
And here's from the Daily Mail is the next one.
Now, this is Vitaly Klitschko.
If you remember the say, okay, no, here's the Washington Post.
Miscalculations and divisions marked the offensive planning by the U.S. and Ukraine.
Washington Post saying these guys messed up.
It's a disaster.
When you lose the post in D.C. as a pro-war thing, then you have problems.
Then the next one is Klitschko.
He's the mayor of Kiev.
And if you remember the name, Dr. Paul, he figured in Victoria Newland's famous phone call, Blank the EU, where she was literally saying, okay, we need Klitschk over here.
We need this guy over here, you know, planning out the government when we overthrew it.
So Klitschko has had his mouth shut for quite a while, but he's opened his mouth this week.
And he said, Zelensky's on his way out.
And he was a former boxing champ.
He says Ukraine's leader is, quote, paying for his mistakes as counteroffensive grinds to a halt.
So what we're seeing here is the wolves begin turning on each other as the thing goes bad.
Klitschko's against Zelensky, Zelensky's against Zeluzhny, and pretty soon you're going to have something really nasty.
You think they're fighting words?
Fighting words.
Yeah, they're going to be shooting words pretty soon.
You know, I want to make a comment about Sanders and him sort of switching.
And now, I imagine he said this because he's appealing to the progressives.
But I think it's a sign maybe the progressives are starting to wake up because it's becoming more popular.
It's almost instead of the progressive elements that used to be leading in the anti-war movement, but now they're sort of following because there are libertarian groups and others that talk about this, and conservatives are going over and representing the non-interventionist policy even better than the progressive Democrats.
But we'll take the support anyway.
We get it.
I hate to wait to see because you say, well, why worry about Iran?
Because the bankruptcy is coming and this whole thing's going to quit.
Because that is going to be a lot worse than the pain that you'll feel when you cut the spending.
But unfortunately, politically speaking, the people will not tolerate any cutting in social spending.
And the military industrial complex aren't going to tolerate it either.
They'll figure out a way of getting what they want.
And if not, they'll cheat.
They'll hide it.
When these major banking crises occur and we couldn't get the audit of the Fed, I'm just totally convinced that when the heat is on, they're not going to let you know exactly what they're doing.
And if they have this much financial control, and then there's the threats that they can do, if you don't do it our way, we're going to cut you off from your credit.
So it's a mess.
But eventually, though, the chaos will come.
I would think, though, it's much better to recognize where the problems are, what you have to do.
And if you have to bite a bullet, bite a bullet.
Don't get the bullet shot at you.
Well, you know, the pro-war faction in Congress could not have dreamed up a better opposition than what passes as today's progressives, you know, people like AOC and Taliban and the squad and all these people because they are so distasteful.
Their behavior is so unappealing.
You think back in the days when we had progressive coalition with people like Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich.
It was based on ideas, not on antics or acting up or misbehaving.
It was about ideas.
So, in a way, I mean, if you're conspiratorial, you couldn't have bought a better phony progressive coalition than we have now.
And that's been the greatest friend of the pro-war faction, I think.
So, you want to mention anything about the Pentagon?
Yeah, let's go on.
The Pentagon can't account for a little bit.
63%, they don't know where it went.
That's a couple bucks.
Maybe you just walk out on the sidewalk, you might find out 63% of nearly $4 trillion in assets.
Boy, they're doing well.
But that's not wealth.
That's wealth taken and converted into the assets of criminals and the criminals who want to perpetuate their financial power and the welfare warfare state.
And so far, they have done well.
But news like this is very helpful because it wouldn't take a PhD to look at this and say, well, let me see.
I don't know much about math or anything, but I do know a little bit of arithmetic.
That sounds like a lot of money.
You see, when I read that, I feel a little comforted because I am hopeless at balancing my family budget.
I have to admit, I'm just not good at it.
This makes me feel like I'm a hero.
You know, I feel like that Dave Ramsey guy because, man, I could not mess up this bat if I wanted to.
Let's put that up.
And now we know that they couldn't pass an audit.
Go back one if you don't mind, just as the headline so I can read it out.
This is our friends at Responsible Statecraft again.
We have to give them a hats off for putting out some good material here.
As you say, Dr. Paul, the Pentagon can't account for 63% of its $4 trillion in access.
They have no idea where this is, so they say.
And go to the next one.
Here is: here's an important point made in the article.
But semantics aside, one major reason the Pentagon keeps failing audits is because it can't keep track of its property.
Last year, the Pentagon couldn't properly account for a whopping 61% of its $3.5 trillion in assets.
That feature increased this year, with the department insufficiently documenting 63% of its now $3.8 trillion in assets.
Military contractors possess many of these assets, but to an extent, still unbeknownst to the Pentagon.
To that, I would say, Dr. Paul, I'm a little suspicious.
I think this whole, well, we don't know where the money is, I think that's actually a feature, not a bug.
I think they're happy that they can't be audited because remember a few months ago, they found $6 billion under the couch for Ukraine.
So if everyone, we don't know where it is, we don't know where anything, but that will enable them to have all this trust fund money.
Plus the ability of the Fed to do things secretly.
Exactly.
Secretly, you're right.
Yeah.
You know, that was the big thing that they wanted, they didn't want the audit of the Fed because they didn't want to be intimidated by the politicians.
We want to be left alone.
And I think your point at the time was, well, you want to see what you're doing overseas.
We want to see where money is going overseas.
And that was the thing that they protected the most.
All the foreign tactics.
After 08, right?
After the housing bus.
Who are you bailing out overseas?
We don't want to tell you that.
It's amazing that such an incomprehensible system could last as long as it had.
Because look, the erosion started in 1913.
But there were steps that make it worse and worse.
And of course, The one big step in the wrong direction was the admission that it's all over, and that was in 1971 when the last bit of a promise to say we are going to limit the supply of money and it will be tied to gold.
Nadler's Anti-Semitism Bill00:05:55
They pretended that for a while, but now it's free-sailing.
Yeah.
Except for the market.
And the people are going to rebel because it is paid for by higher prices.
That is the one issue.
We have to get the average person on the street to realize that the cost of living comes from the fact that they run up deficits, giving money to the people who want help to stop the inflation.
So it is crucial, and there's a lot of people who do understand it, but the truth is, is nobody wants to have to suffer consequences.
And then there's the line, too.
You're not going to get your Social Security check if you go along with these crazy Republicans or non-interventionists.
And China will be in the Gulf of Mexico before you know it.
Well, I wanted to finish up with just a little update because we talked, I think it was a couple weeks ago, about a bill that went through the House, went through Congress about anti-Semitism.
Now, the one thing you can count on in Washington is a steady supply of bills condemning anti-Semitism.
That's just what they do.
But we talked about Representative Massey voted against this.
I think he was the only Republican to vote no on it.
And what this last bill had was the implied, it implied that anti-Zionism was anti-Semitism.
It wasn't specifically stated.
So when some people may have said, hey, that's not strong enough.
So they came out with a new bill.
Now, skip ahead, one, because I got these in the wrong order.
Skip ahead to the one where it says the number of the bill.
So they've just introduced a couple of weeks ago H. Res 894, strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and around the world.
894 it is.
So this has taken over for the one that was passed a couple weeks ago, and it has a lot more of a bite to it.
For the first time, I believe, on the House floor, if you back up one, this is the operative resolve clause.
Clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
Now that's a real problem.
And I think my suspicion is that some of these zealots in there who are just desperate to pass these bills constantly don't really know that much about Jewish history, about Israel, or about Zionism at all.
And in fact, they thought they were doing a great deed and a wonderful favor to Jews worldwide when in fact they were not.
And they were called out on it by none other than Gerald Nadler, with whom we don't often agree, a very liberal Jewish representative from New York.
However, if you go to the next one, now Thomas Massey retweeted, he says, I'm going to vote against this one as well.
He says, anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism.
That's what Massey said.
And if you actually go to the link, Nadler, believe it or not, had a very insightful, don't play it yet, a very insightful statement on the floor.
Now, part of his district in Brooklyn were what people would call the ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Satmari Jews, which interestingly enough originated in Hungary, I think in the 19th century.
But a lot of these so-called ultra ultra-Orthodox Jews do not support Zionism at all.
And here's Nadler, who knows best because these are his constituents.
Let's play 52 seconds of Nadler.
Hold on one second.
We need to grab our earphones here if you have yours.
You've got Nadler explaining to the House, who were probably gloating enthusiastically about what a wonderful deed they've done, pointing out to him, you guys don't know what you're talking about.
This is a terrible idea.
Let's listen to Gerald Nadler.
It's going to take a second.
Looks like we're in a bit of a slow.
Let's refresh that and see what's going on with Nadler.
A little bit of a technical thing.
Here's Jerry.
Come on, let's go, Jerry.
Here we go.
Let's get this volume up.
That's that all anti-Zionism, it states that all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
That is either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong.
And it unfairly implicates many of my Orthodox former constituents in Brooklyn, many of whose families rose from the ashes of the Holocaust.
While most anti-Semitism is indeed anti-Semitic, the authors, if they were at all familiar with Jewish history and culture, should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not anti-Semitic.
This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain Orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities, Satmer in New York and others, as well as adherents of the pre-Jewish state, pre-state Jewish labor movement, have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia quote, basically, and I didn't play the whole thing, but Nadler goes on to very appropriately say, this bill would condemn millions of Jews around the world as being anti-Semitic because they are not supportive of Zionism.
So it'll be interesting.
There was a voice vote last night, and someone requested a recorded vote, which will come up later this week.
But if you see a lot of Jewish representatives in the House saying this is not a good idea, you could see this collapse.
Because somebody stood up and stood up and said, you don't know what you're talking about.
There are millions of Jews who are not, you know, pro-Zionist.
It's just a fact, even in Israel, who are not pro-Zionists.
Speech Control Dynamics00:02:37
So this again is, once again, is the House trying to get ahead of itself.
Yeah.
And, you know, what I see going on here is to popularize and explain and lull the people to sleep for speech control.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, and expand it.
And so they come up with this.
But, you know, that, of course, is just coincides with what's been going on in the social media.
You know, if you didn't say and do things that the government wants, the FBI can work in collusion with social media and you can lose your job.
And that came out of the emergency of the COVID crisis.
And so it's just generally speaking, this is very, very negative.
And of course, everybody knows I'm an optimist, but some days it's more difficult because this is really a bad trend because I considered one of the most important things that we have to maintain, maintain a republic is to have the right of freedom of speech.
And, you know, the founders actually, you know, put it in there, but they also understood it because they used pretty strong languages against each other and the government.
And that's one thing is expression.
But now it's so mixed up.
But what they're after is control, control, control.
And so often we and others mentioned that during the COVID lockdown was control.
Whether it was mask wearing or separation, all this stuff, it was done.
Not so much that they even thought it was going to do any good, but we have to condition our people to listen to us because how else can they live and enjoy life if we don't take care of them?
What a shame.
Yeah, well, I just want to thank our viewers for tuning in today.
I'm happy to be back.
I'm maybe 70%, so that's a heck of a lot better than I was.
It's a delight and also a pain to be reading the news heavily again and getting involved in it.
But thanks to you, it keep us going.
Watching the show keeps us going.
We hope that you will subscribe to this channel if you're not yet subscribed, that you'll hit like, that you'll make some comments, whether on Rumble or YouTube.
We're live on Rumble, but we do show up on YouTube later in the day, and our audio shows up in a bunch of other places later in the day.
So there are a lot of shows out there.
There are more shows than we started almost nine years ago, Dr. Paul, can believe that.
So taking time out of your day to give us a half an hour of your time, it just really means a lot to us.
So thank you.
Very good.
Shutdown Threat Looms00:04:13
I'm going to just mention a little bit about what the dynamics are in Congress when they go through these sessions because these types of sessions, arguing over the budget and where the money is going to be spent, that's been around for a long time.
It's just getting more serious because we're entering into this phase where the recognition of our bankruptcy is going to become more evident.
So they're looking around when they negotiate here.
Yes, the special interests want to line up.
The military wants their money, and the people who are on the welfare side, they want their money, and they have to protect their base.
So they've only got the money, and that invites, I think, that Daniel was talking about.
Two people coming together, you know, liberal and conservative.
If you come together because you're allies on one issue, that's one thing.
But if you come together by giving up, so that the people who want to spend money for welfare, then the other for the military, yeah, what they do is they agree to raise both.
And they've been getting away with that because we've had so much wealth and confidence and power with our empire.
But there's a lot of angling when this happens is who gets blamed because we already hear it's constant now.
There's going to be a shutdown, a shutdown, more talk of that than there used to be.
So it's coming up again.
Who's going to be blamed?
And I often wonder how sometimes the innocent people get blamed, but it's a much bigger thing, but there is a big fight.
Nobody wants to get blamed for it.
They want to brag that I got your money and we did not go over budget.
And they perpetuate the lies.
So the blame is a big thing, though.
Even sometimes they'll blame the president, a president that might be saying, I'm going to veto this.
You're just spending way too much money on the military.
And then they will come and they'll blame sometimes the president, sometimes liberal Democrats in the Senate or the House or the Republicans.
And they're always looking for blame.
But they never argue about why are we not following the rules?
So much of this is not allowed.
It's illegal.
You're breaking your promises.
No, that isn't the case.
It's who's going to get blamed for this little thing that we have going for us.
And as long as we can maintain the power and the pressure and the financing secretly and sometimes with whispers, what the Federal Reserve can do, they'll go along together.
So they do talk and get along on that because they don't want to get rid of the instrument that pays all the bills.
So that will be necessary.
It will happen, just as it just recently happened in Argentina, and it's happening here right now because we have over the last 70 years, we've lost like 98% of the value of the dollar.
It can't continue forever.
And that's why we see an exponential growth of the deficit.
If you want to watch just one thing on what the future will be like, just watch the growth and the rapidity of the growth of the debt.
And you'll realize there's bad times ahead.
But fortunately, the answers are easy.
Just follow the rules and quit spending the money because everybody's going to be better off.
You say, well, no, you mean my benefits are going to end?
Yes, they're going to end.
But the benefits of liberty will be yours.
You can work and you can keep everything you earn.
And that would make a big difference.
Now, that's a jobs program that's worth fighting for.
So I think the politikin of this is a big hindrance because it's difficult.
It's very confusing.
And they pretend to do a lot of obedience to the Constitution and morality than they're really involved in.