All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
35:36
Green Reversal? Biden Screams At Oil Companies For Not Drilling!

With the country crippled by record gas prices, President Biden has taken to yelling at oil companies for NOT drilling. But didn't he promise to end drilling and fossil fuels? Also today: horrific cost of covid lockdowns revealed. And - "Inflation? Ha! We're sending another $650 million for weapons to Ukraine!"

|

Time Text
Why Putin Yells at Oil Companies 00:09:33
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 this morning?
Doing fine.
All set to go.
The markets are still opening, but they're pretty weak.
That is the conventional markets.
But anyway, the world will continue to turn, but it'll take a while to, you know, there's a lot of resilience to even a whisper of liberty.
You know, people do survive, even on the worst of times.
And that's what we're doing.
We're living off the past, you know, income and the past opportunities we had in a much freer society.
But we will be forced to adapt, and that's what we're going through now is a process of adaptation to realizing there ain't no free thing like a lunch, no-free lunch.
So that's what we're doing.
We're paying the bills now, and that's why people are hurting.
And unfortunately, the middle class pays more than the rich class when the bills are being paid.
But right now, one of the biggest things politically here is the issue of energy, oil, oil prices, just as it was, as I recall very vividly about how the Saudis precipitated and aggravated the inflation that we created ourselves.
We had all kinds of problems in the 70s.
And we went the whole year because everything the government did, they just delayed the recovery.
So it was a bad decade.
And I'm sort of leading in that position, believing that we'll do the same thing over and over again.
We did that.
We put too much mischief in trying to solve the problem by doing the same thing that caused the problem.
And the Depression lasted actually 15 years by my count.
So right now, there's a little bit of hostility building.
And Biden, you know, he gets hit pretty hard.
I think somebody made a statement, well, it's worse than their Democrats just getting angry at Biden.
They're starting to feel sorry for him.
That's really bad.
So in some ways, when you look at it in a big picture without the politics involved, I could understand.
I said, well, that guy's having trouble.
And we're having trouble because of it because he hasn't accepted the idea that a little bit of market economies in the energy field could have saved him a lot of trouble, which would have covered up the many mistakes that come when you have inflation of the money supply and distortion.
You have those problems to deal with.
But when you add on to it the attitude of the administration and the attitude of a lot of Republicans and Democrats, so it's a persistent problem.
But this week and this weekend, Biden was really, really at it.
He got pretty upset about what's happening.
And he has sent a letter to Big Oil.
And it's not a friendly letter.
Come over and let's have a beer together.
It was a great deal of anger.
But, you know, as I recall sort of, I think he wasn't exactly Big Oil's friend even during the campaign.
And he had his antagonisms with them.
And now people say, why is he doing this?
Why is he doing it?
Well, he's just an honest man.
It's hard to believe, but he's following up his promises.
Unless I've misconstrued that.
Yeah, he sent a letter to big oil companies, several of the biggest companies.
And basically, Through the letter, what he's trying to tell America, because everyone is feeling it.
You know, my gas tank is down to an eighth of a tank, and I'm afraid to go to the gas pump.
But he basically says, It's not my fault.
These aren't my policies.
Nothing that I did did this.
He blamed the oil companies.
In fact, you can put that first clip up.
He's mad at them.
He said, at a time of war, refinery profit margins well above normal being passed directly to American families are not acceptable.
So essentially, he's saying, it's all your fault companies.
You're making too much money.
And by the way, we're at war.
Don't you know that?
You need to do everything that I say.
I'm the commander-in-chief.
You're making too much profits.
And then he also goes on to blame, of course, Vladimir Putin.
And he says, Vladimir Putin's price hike is driving up goods for cost for consumers.
I appreciate your immediate attention to this issue and your efforts to mitigate the economic challenges that Vladimir Putin's actions have created for American families.
So again, it's him passing the buckets.
Everyone's fault but his.
There was never any such thing as a move for green energy.
That was just our imagination.
It's all Putin's fault.
And there, to be honest and fair to Biden, there is some truth to part of what he's saying.
And this is, and we got this from Zero Hedge.
And here is a chart from Zero Hedge that points out he's partly right.
I don't know if we can get that any bigger.
But this is refining capacity in the U.S.
And you see that increase and increase, and you see that very precipitous drop-off.
That's COVID.
That's lockdown policies.
Now, unfortunately, they won't admit it because Biden embraced the lockdown even more enthusiastically than Trump did, Dr. Paul.
But when you see the radical reduction in our ability to refine oil into gasoline, that's all COVID.
So blaming Putin is wrong, but also saying putting all the blame on Biden is wrong.
Yes, and in this recent episode of his challenging the oil industry, I saw it a pretty direct threat.
Or face our tools.
Well, the tools of the federal government are pretty big.
But I think the real enemy that the American people are facing and that Biden's facing is trying to arrive at a position of relative truth at least, just some truth about it.
But there's so much deception going on.
And Biden, you know, has a record of being pretty tough.
He didn't mince words and say, well, we can work things out and we do need a good energy policy and we do need a little bit of market left.
No, it wasn't that.
I mean, it was very, very strong, what he was advocating.
And here's an example, and I found a couple of clips that I would juxtapose to explain that he really is kind of revising history here because he's saying, again, not my fault.
It's oil companies, evil capitalists' fault.
And here's the first clip.
Now we're going to start at the 35-second mark, and we're going to go to the minute and three-second mark.
This is him yelling at oil companies.
I think it was today or yesterday, saying, Why aren't you drilling?
Why aren't you drilling?
If we can, here, let's listen to what he has to say about this.
Can we pump more oil?
There are now five, there are 172 gas and oil rigs running.
Now we have 519 in operation before this all began.
But guess what?
They have over 7,000 permits to dig oil if they want.
Why aren't they out pumping oil?
And contrast that with Joe Biden on the campaign trail, and here's a great compilation that's put on that next video clip.
That's from the beginning to around the 43-second mark.
Why aren't you drilling?
Well, he told them that he's not going to let them drill.
Let's see what he has to say here.
Would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?
No, we would work it out.
We would make sure it's eliminated.
No more drilling on federal lands.
No more drilling, including offshore.
No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.
I guarantee you, we're going to end fossil fuels.
What about stopping fracking and stopping pipeline infrastructure and any more oil drilling or gas drilling on federal lands?
No one's going to build a coal-fired plant again, and we're going to get rid of the ones we have now.
Here's the change.
We are going to get rid of fossil fuels.
No more drilling, no more fracking, no more coal plants, no more anything.
That's him on the campaign trail, and now he's saying, why aren't you drilling?
Why aren't you drilling?
So it's almost comical, but it's not that funny.
You know, what I was thinking about, listening to him talking, is where are the people?
Where aren't they listening?
Didn't they pay attention?
Which is, no, they weren't.
And the whole thing was the campaign was driven by hate, hating one individual versus real policy because they had to hide this guy because they were, you know, probably didn't want these kind of statements to get out, but they did.
Excess Deaths & Lockdowns 00:13:34
But it's so aggressive.
And yet, it should have been a big warning.
You know, people shouldn't be surprised, especially if they work it into the understanding of the business cycle because there was a destiny for the downturn coming from all the inflation that happened the past 10 years.
You have to have the correction and you have to have the liquidation of debt.
So the evidence was there, but I sort of brag on Austrian economics because having looked at that for about 30 years, it's so profound, I think, in predicting these things with the qualification that you know what's coming, you know all this distortion, you know what people do, but people say, well, it doesn't work because you didn't tell me what to do yesterday, and I could have made $10 million.
No, understanding, as Mises would say, human action, the activity of human beings, that you can't predict the activity of millions and millions of people, so therefore you can't predict timing.
So they print a lot of money and they do all this thing.
Well, there's a price to be paid, and you should be prepared for it, and you should try to change the policy.
And when the crisis comes, you ought to know what you're supposed to work for to replace it.
But we're in the midst of this, where we have the opportunity to look at all these things.
But right now, you know, it's a lot of anger going on and a lot of blame.
And that's why one of the biggest things that we have to help sort out is the fact that the price is being paid by a lot of people who are truly innocent.
They didn't know any better, but they didn't have much opportunity.
And the people who just wanted to make a living and live in a free society, they're the ones who, that middle class, pays the price much heavier than anybody else.
So this is where we are today.
And this just, this is not encouraging.
This dramatizes, you know, the problems, the nonsense.
And, you know, I just think that that kind of stuff is, you know, it's not like he was, you know, in a courtroom and took an oath and lied outright.
But he is demagoguing, and I think this inconsistency is equivalent to a lie, although technically and legally it might not be considered, but it's a political lie.
And the only thing I see is waking up people to what's going on and recognize it, seek the truth, because people evidently, that was around.
And if the atmosphere was such, if the media had been aware of economics and all, they might have pointed this out to a lot of people.
But that didn't happen.
That just sailed by.
And then they say, how did we ever get here?
There'll be books written 20 or 30 years from now because we're going to have a 10-year problem here.
And there's going to be people.
How did we ever get to it?
Because many books were written about Germany after World War II, decades later.
How did the German people ever allow fascism to unfold?
And the word fascism is thrown around a lot and many times very accurately.
You know, it's almost like when you have an intervention with someone who needs it, the first step is to get them to admit they have a problem.
And you have to wonder, why won't he just admit that a lot of our problems right now with refining gasoline and prices, et cetera, are because of ideologically motivated policies.
And this is not speculation because he said it himself.
And let's put this next clip up because this is Joe Biden from March 15th, 2020 on the campaign trail.
Very, very open about his ideologically motivated attack on oil and gas.
He says, we have to treat climate change like the existential threat it is.
As president, I will end subsidies for fossil fuel corporations.
I will ban new drilling on federal lands and waters.
I will hold oil executives accountable.
And I will rally the world to raise the commitments of the Paris Agreement.
And the thing is, just admit it.
You said it here.
The problems, the unintended, maybe unintended consequences are that we're in the situation we're in where we're paying five, six, seven bucks a gallon because you're following through with some of your dumb promises on the campaign trail.
You know, there's an article on anti-war today that was admitting that there is dissension in the administration, and they must be honestly concerned about the coming election.
It says the Biden officials are concerned about the sanctions that we're putting on.
And maybe they're saying they're actually challenging our overall policy, which is not Biden.
Biden's part of it, but Republicans have supported all these sanctions too.
And they're saying they're recognizing they're hurting ordinary people because they need ordinary people to do some of their voting.
And that's what they're getting concerned about.
And, you know, the other thing that is popping up that is occurring in the administration is that maybe part of the answer could be found in nuclear.
Nuclear has always fascinated me because I defended it and I didn't like it managed by the government.
And that's why it's not a perfect market answer to it.
But it's something that could be used and they're talking about it because lo and behold, it's cheaper and it's cleaner than anything else.
But there's too much government intervention that has made it more dangerous of more of a political football.
And right now it's going to be very difficult to change the supply lines to get back to producing electricity through nuclear.
Have a nuclear power plant close to where we're sitting, and they were going to have another reactor put in there quite a few years ago, but that was all canceled because of the attitude of many Republicans and Democrats.
Yeah.
Well, let's move on now to our second topic, and this is something that we're going to continue to follow up on.
Maybe some people don't want to hear it because they want to just move on.
And I kind of feel the same way, but we have to face this, and we have to, in a way, say that the skeptics of lockdowns were right.
Let's skip that next clip and go to the next one after that from Summit News.
Here's a new study that's come out to reinforce what plenty of other studies have also found.
And this was published on 13 June.
New study concludes that lockdowns caused at least 170,000 excess deaths in the U.S.
So just the lockdowns, not COVID, the lockdowns.
Talk about unintended consequences, Dr. Paul.
Almost 200,000 estimated additional deaths.
Right.
There's more evidence coming out now questioning the policies that were carried out by a bipartisan government.
And now they're looking back and just wondering why in the world did they do this.
And the whole thing is there's more and more information coming out to show that a lot of it didn't make any sense.
And of course, a lot of people agree with this on this whole idea that there's too many dollars to be made.
There's a pharmaceutical lobbying group in Washington.
Sometimes they punish people who want to talk the truth about science.
And they turned it around on an attack on the First Amendment.
You know, it isn't so much that anybody who disagreed with the policies we had had the absolute perfect wonderful answer.
Most of those individuals, including us, all we wanted was a fair debate, not to be walked off social media or lose your jobs and threaten because they didn't want to hear about this.
But now I think the complications from, you know, whether it's from the lockdowns and the vaccines and all, it's going to last a long time.
And it was based on the fact that they turned it upside down and said that people who defended debate and argued for the cause of natural immunity were punished severely.
And that's no way to operate in a free society, which we do not have.
And this again was on Summit News.
The study was conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, so it's worth looking into this article.
The other thing that was interesting about this study, Dr. Paul, is he also looked at the Europeans.
And here you can contrast countries that locked down and countries that didn't.
And he says that the researchers state that for the European Union as a whole, the estimate of excess deaths per 100,000 is 64.
64 non-COVID excess deaths per 100,000 for the EU as a whole.
They also point out that in contrast, the estimate for Sweden is 33, meaning that non-COVID causes of deaths were somewhat low, actually lower during the pandemic.
And this is interesting.
In 2021, the country had an average excess death rate of 56 per 100,000 compared to 109 in the UK, 111 in Spain, 116 in Germany, and 133 in Italy.
So the more the lockdown states, the heavier the lockdown, the much higher non-COVID excess deaths, the lower the lockdown, like in Sweden, the lower the excess deaths.
You know, the evidence is coming out now.
When you follow these patients long-term, The people who had vaccinations are more likely to get a second infection, which means there's something really messed up in the whole immune system.
And they have to then be doing, they're more likely to be sicker than those who didn't have anything.
So once again, it challenges them.
It just must drive them nuts because this is evidence.
Truth does win out, but it's so slow.
And even now, thank goodness, it's not so threatening to us.
You know, even the people, the people, we talked about how the people are reacting, and they probably identified the lack of severity early on.
But now they're saying that for the things that people are concerned about in this election, it's at the bottom of the list.
All this stuff.
But these are facts that they're going to, even though it won't have the political clout, it still is very important, you know, that what they're doing is not good science in many ways, and yet they flip it around.
That if you oppose it, this is the control.
And of course, this is what Biden has.
They have these little committees and they check out your speech all the time, you know, speech control.
Yeah.
Well, here's another study on that same note that honestly, if it had not been published on MSN with Microsoft Network, which is thoroughly mainstream, I probably wouldn't have even brought it to your attention.
But the fact that it is out there in the mainstream media, I think just makes it fair game for us to comment on.
And let's put this next clip up because I had to do a double take when I saw this.
The headline is: Severe COVID-19 is rare in unvaccinated people.
A survey reveals.
And just leave that up there for a second because what it says is a survey has found that people who did not get the vaccine had a lower rate of suffering severe COVID-19 amid the pandemic.
The survey uploaded to the preprint server ResearchGate presented data from more than 18,000 respondents from the control group with more than 300,000 overall participants.
An analysis revealed that compared to those who got jabbed, unvaccinated people reported fewer hospitalizations.
That is pretty shocking, but we will put a caveat in there because we redefine print.
And let's put this next one up to cover our basis here because we have to show the whole thing.
It said, this is the same article.
Since the participants were self-selected and self-reported, the survey findings had to be interpreted with care compared to statistics or studies based on randomly selected populations, according to the Alliance for Natural Health International.
So, yes, take it with a grain of salt.
However, it's a mainstream publication.
They're not about to publish something like this, I think, without checking it, you think.
This fits my argument that there's a couple things here.
What is the proper scientific answers to these problems that we have?
But the other one is allowing a debate on it.
You know, as these problems come up, and then to say that you can't even discuss them or you can't be a professor and you can't write in the journals anymore because you don't fit the mold of the scenario that they want to hear.
And that to me is a big problem.
And that is the locking out of debate.
Yeah, well, our last topic today is kind of an old topic, but we've got to keep it going.
It's actually not that old, but put up that next one.
It's from Bloomberg.
Keeping the Debate Alive 00:10:38
More money if you're going to the gas pump like I am later and you're already having an anxiety attack, you can look at this headline from Bloomberg.
U.S. to announce additional $650 million in weapons for Ukraine.
So forget the Americans who can't afford to go shopping, who can't find baby formula this week or whatever it is next week.
We're going to send vehicle-mounted harpoon anti-ship missiles and even more advanced weapons, $650 million.
And now, in fairness and accuracy, I think this is taken from that $40 billion that was appropriated.
So I don't think that it's new money.
Nevertheless, that money is being taken and sent over there at the expense of Americans who are in a bad way.
Yeah, it's been rubber stamped by 50 nations in Brussels.
What's happening in Brussels?
Oh, that's where I think NATO spends some time there.
And they've got them together.
And, you know, the nations are quite willing to go along.
Well, why would they want to give the United States so much money and go along with our policy?
Well, it's not quite that way.
They towed the line because they want to be on the list of who's going to receive funds because America is going to be rich forever.
So that's why they have to do America's bidding.
So it's, and there were 50 nations came together for that.
You know, what I thought about when this came up was, you know, we knew about it.
We've fought it, especially even before 2014 when they had the so-called revolution, the coup, which threw out an elected leader and all the trouble that was brewing.
And then we get into this hot war.
It's a NATO war against Russia.
And it continues.
You say, well, we'll end it quickly.
We'll send $50, $60 billion.
That's a little bit of change.
Let them buy some weapons.
The energy companies will be happy.
The American people, the hawks, will feel good.
Well, that's good patriotism.
We're still king of the hill.
And all of a sudden, they do that.
And it doesn't work out that way.
There's no victory party.
And so we have to take care of them.
People have used that argument.
At times, would agree with me, yeah, you're right.
It didn't work.
I said, well, but we're morally responsible.
We did the harm, so therefore we have to pay it.
But the American people didn't do the harm.
But anyway, that's their argument for continuation.
Although they say it's a continuation to make sure we just don't desert Ukraine, but it's also a continuation for the dependency of the arms manufacturers to continue with this.
And then they need a lot of money for this.
But it made me think about the problem of illegal immigration.
A lot of people who are on the side of we ought to be more cautious and illegal immigration doesn't make any sense.
But how about the financing of illegal immigration?
It's growing every year and financing continues.
And when it doesn't work and you find out all the complications going on and who's coming in and what kind of disruption it has, there's been an estimate that the immigration could be $100 billion a year.
And I keep thinking, no, it couldn't be, couldn't be that much.
But, you know, if it's $60 billion for Ukraine and continuing, they want this to be continued.
Well, what happens with the illegal immigration?
That continues.
And just think of what it was back when we had a more common sense approach to work permits.
Let people come, let them stay, come visit, do things.
But you don't get benefits.
So if you give the benefits and you give them hotel rooms, when they come, they get hotel rooms and they all get fed.
Well, when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
And all of a sudden, they find out that there's more criminal activity from many of the immigrants.
So that's on and on.
But once again, just like in the military, the financing is going to continue.
They're not going to have a vote next year.
Even after the election, and there's a change in party leadership, you're not going to see anybody cutting a nickel out of taking care of illegal immigrants.
And they won't change their tune.
It'll just continue.
So once they have a policy and they lock in, there's this dependency.
But that's the way it is about the welfare system.
And people think about how does the government take care of people when they're in need, rather than saying, how does the government protect liberty for all people so they can take care of themselves and not be destroyed and interrupted and abused by our government?
Well, here's something that we did put up briefly yesterday, and I think we'll just put it up for emphasis.
That next piece, this is from anti-war.com and Dave de Camp.
This is the Deputy Defense Secretary, Kathleen Hicks.
She was outright.
She was very honest.
She said, we're going to keep sending arms to Ukraine for years to come.
We're going to keep shipping your money over there for years to come.
There's not a darn thing you're going to do about it.
And Ukraine heard the message loud and clear.
I don't have a clip from this, but this is also Dave de Camp from today.
Ukraine hears them loud and clear.
Here's the headline.
Ukraine says it needs $5 billion in monthly external aid to avoid budget cuts.
So basically they're going to all these American U.S. EU.
They're saying, hey, we need $5 billion a month.
We don't want to have to cut our budget.
We don't want to have to cut all the money we give out.
So cough it up.
And the most amazing thing is how naive people can get that they don't see the hand running on the wall.
And they don't say, well, common sense tells me that monopoly money doesn't work forever.
Maybe you can fool the kids for a couple days, but monopoly money eventually is recognized as being counterfeit, and then there is a, people then have to leave it and reject it.
And they're in the process of doing it, although the world still needs a dollar because there's been so many people dependent, but there's more hostility associated with it.
The foreign policy is creating the hostility, and they're just annoyed by the whole thing.
And it's going to happen.
It's going to continue until this thing stops.
But people say, well, since the dollar's holding up, if everybody wants our dollars and everybody wants us to take care of them, why are you so worried?
And I tell them, the results that you see for paying for this, are you paying for all this nonsense when you go to the store?
Do not forget that when you buy gasoline today or go to the grocery store, I'm paying for this nonsense, which means the dollar is worth less.
It's been debased.
And we're not going to climb out of it.
We have over the many years, ever since the Federal Reserve started this process of repeatedly bailing them out.
But I think since 2008, if you study it carefully, since 2008, the bailing out, the QEs didn't work.
The QEs, the consequence of the QEs, are what we're facing today.
And that is the inflation.
And now they say, well, the people are still buying goods.
Retail sale.
Today the retail is crashed.
Oh, yes, but there's a lot of jobs out there.
Yeah, well, there are no new jobs.
The people have come back to work.
So there's no more jobs today than there was before COVID.
So they can fool themselves for a while, but eventually they have to face up to the music.
And as far as I'm concerned, is that what we have to stop is the music of just saying, print up more money, take care of the world, tell people what to do, put sanctions on people who disobey.
If they don't do what we tell them, we'll bomb them.
That is going to end because the people are going to rebel against us.
And besides, we're going to go broke.
Well, here's a little reminder again of where that $5 billion a month is going and that $700 billion, whatever, we're spending.
This is from Ukrainian news.
It's the Ukrainian website.
It came out a little under a week ago.
A little bit of news that you won't see on CNN or Fox.
Put up that next clip, if you will.
This is the plucky little democracy that we're preserving.
The 8th Administrative Court of Appeal partially satisfied the claim of the Ministry of Justice and banned the activities of the opposition bloc political party.
The Ministry of Justice has said this in a statement, Ukrainian news agency reports, quote, according to the court decision, it was decided to transfer all property, funds, and other assets of this party to the ownership of the state.
So essentially, they banned the opposition political party.
And this isn't RT, this isn't a Russian propaganda website.
This is Ukrainian website saying, yeah, we decided to go ahead and ban the opposition party.
That makes things a little bit more smooth.
And again, if Republicans had any sense, and with a couple of exceptions they don't, they would jump on this and say, why are we sending so much money over?
And my last thing I'm going to say is I'm going to put up a tweet, Dr. Paul, from R.J. Kasim, who is the editor of National Pulse.
And this gives me a little hope, and I don't know what his positions are and everything, but I like seeing the conservative side of the Republican Party being skeptical of interventionism.
I think there's some hope there.
Here's what Kasim wrote, and he nails it exactly.
And you know we're going to see this, Dr. Paul.
He said, you know what the best part of all the Ukraine cash is?
There will be a record of spending, but in 2027, the New York Times will publish two days of the Ukraine papers, which will effectively admit that 93% of American aid ended up in the hands of oligarchs, Nazis, and mob bosses.
That is, you can see it happening.
Three or four more years, the New York Times is going to break the story.
Well, what they're describing is something very immoral.
Wouldn't they reconsider?
Oh, boy.
Hope In Voluntary Activity 00:01:49
All right.
I want to thank all our viewers once again for supporting us.
And I want to close by talking in generalities about whether it's immigration or subsidizing the world and pretending that we have our empire that's going to last forever.
But people don't have a right to our money.
Matter of fact, domestic people, our citizens don't have a right to take money from the government, which takes it from somebody else.
They rob somebody else or they print it and they destroy the value of the money.
So that is not the purpose of government, but government is there because the government is supposed to protect your right to be left alone.
Now that would be a real, real neat thing to happen because economic activity would be voluntary.
All the social activities, sexual activities, religious activity would be voluntary as long as nobody commits a crime of violence against somebody.
And then people do not have, you know, they cannot declare, but I have a right to be taken care of.
And so therefore the government has an obligation because that is a right and they're supposed to protect our right.
That is confusion on purpose, but that's where we are today because everybody that's receiving something from the government now, you know, or promotes it, are believing they have a right to it because everybody else is doing it and that's the way the system works and that's the way it's been.
Yes, it's been that way way too long, but that's not the way we started.
And we started in this country with an understanding of what a free society was like, and they also emphasized the principle of private property and voluntarism.
Let's hope we can return to that someday.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection