President Biden's trip next week to a Saudi Arabia, that not long ago he referred to as a "pariah state," demonstrates just how desperate his Administration is to save the sinking ship of the US economy. Officials are now floating the idea of approving "offensive" weapons to the Saudis as Biden prepares to grovel for more oil. Also today: Iran sending drones to Russia? Really Jake? Finally: Congress adds a few billion to Biden's military funding request. Business as usual for the Beltway bandits.
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.
Happy Tuesday, Dr. Paul.
Good.
Good to be here today.
Yes.
Want to start off with money.
The government's spending too much money.
Did you notice that?
No.
No, they're spending too much.
But it's not a problem because it's not their money, and there's no limit.
And as long as the people say, oh, I like your money, it's going to go until it crashes.
What we're trying to do is prevent the crash.
And if it does happen, know what to do.
Make sure you have some gold and silver coins or something around it will happen.
But we want to start off with the fact that our president's going to go on a, is this a business trip or a vacation?
Not a vacation, I don't think.
You know, I think it's business because when people spend a lot of money in Washington, those on the interventionist side, whether it's military or domestic, it's always an investment.
We're going to invest in America.
We're going to invest in the people.
So he must be going to invest.
Well, in this way, he's on a business trip to sell weapons or buy weapons or who knows what.
But he's over there to correct the relationship with Saudi.
But our former president, his first trip went to Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Nobody seemed to make a big deal of that.
But there's a bigger deal being made here with Biden from the Democrats as much as the Republicans because I think there's been a loss of confidence in the president.
But he wants to work a deal, but there's lots of things going on.
He wants to talk about Yemen and say, well, maybe we'll have to have you guys back off a little bit.
Of course, if he's going to get Saudis to back off, doesn't he have to ask the U.S. to back off?
Usually we're the ones that are launching missiles and sending them weapons.
So it's a bit of a farce.
But it is a big news, and the Democrats are worried about it.
Not so much that they'll come out with a bad agreement.
I mean, the agreements are going to be messy all the time.
But they're worried, I think, about how it will be handled, whether there will be any mistakes along the way.
And things are said, oh, I didn't mean that.
We'll go over that in a little bit.
We'll explain to you what the new language means.
So we're going to hear more about it this week because he's going over there and he hasn't in the last couple years come across as the shrewdest negotiator in international affairs.
So I think a lot of people will be watching.
Yeah, it is interesting.
Obviously, this whole trip is about oil.
He's going over there to beg the Saudis for more oil.
And the question is, what leverage does he have?
Well, not much because the sanctions against Russia, as we know, have backfired.
They've caused the oil prices to skyrocket.
Well, the rising sea lifts all ships, so the Saudis are making also record money off of the oil thanks to the U.S.'s boneheaded sanctions policy against Russia.
Russia's just selling it everywhere else.
And so what do you do?
You've got $8 a gallon gas in places.
You have Biden at the lowest point of his popularity with even the vast majority of his own party saying, we don't want this guy again.
Can someone take him off our hands?
So what do you do?
Well, you send him begging to Saudi Arabia.
And let's put that first clip on.
This is via our friends at antiwar.com.
This is a Reuters piece, exclusive, U.S. Way's resumption of offensive arms sales to Saudis.
And I was wondering, well, what do we have as leverage?
What does Biden have as leverage?
Well, back in last February, Dr. Paul, you know, the worst war in the world, and we've talked about it forever, is the Saudi aggression toward Yemen.
They've basically turned that country into a moonscape, killed millions of people, and just turned it into hell on earth.
Well, they slowed down a little bit back after 2021, in February, when the Biden administration rightly said, okay, no more offensive weapons.
You guys need to cool it with this.
And there was a ceasefire that's been violated pretty often by the Saudis.
Nevertheless, not as bad as it was.
So what's Biden's leverage to get more oil out of the Saudis?
Well, the blood of Yemen.
And that's what it is.
Because he's going to go over there and he's going to say, hey, we need some oil.
You guys want some air-to-air missiles?
You want some other good stuff?
Okay.
We'll give you this stuff again.
We'll turn away from Yemen.
We won't worry about it.
But we need that oil because I have got an election coming up.
You know, and the markets are interpreting this in a way that is not going to hurt the supply of oil.
Maybe they're discounting the fact that maybe he will give a couple extra barrels because in the last couple days, last week, the oil prices have actually dropped.
And it has to be because of the perceptions.
And it's not an unusual market thing because even with inflation, things go up rapidly, but somebody else is going to say, hey, it's a little high.
I'm going to correct it and sell on this.
So they have been doing that.
And right now the oil is down.
But it's long term.
Saudis are at peak, they claim, you know, on their drilling, and they say they don't have a whole lot of leeway.
And the other factor that enters into this, exactly what will happen to oil, will be the onset of the recession.
People use less gasoline.
And because of the prices, they'll use less.
So that will have an effect.
But yes, the oil is a big deal.
But weaponry is always a big deal.
And it's almost sometimes the continuation of client relationships.
We've got to stay on a good side because we sure don't want the Russians and the China to come in and all.
Sometimes there's bootlegging and black markets and all these kind of things to sell weapons to people seem like they enjoy perpetual war.
And right now we don't need it.
Yeah.
You know, it's interesting, it's a different topic, but the former president now of Sri Lanka called Putin, I think, last week and said, hey, we're out of oil, we're out of money, we're in a real mess.
Can you give us a hand?
They said, okay, we'll talk about it.
A few days later, there was a coup and he was deposed.
So that's what happens when you start doing that kind of stuff.
And I should put up that next clip because we published, this is a retired Indian ambassador, I think he's one of the most astute observers of the international scene, M.K. Badrakumar.
And he makes a great comment about this article.
He says, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Salman is making Biden bite the dust, which is basically what it is.
But, you know, some people say even if the Saudis relented and said, okay, here's some more oil, we want to go ahead and get those military equipment, that it really wouldn't have an effect.
And I'm not an expert in this, I don't pretend to be, but we've talked about it before.
The refining capacity in the U.S. is now so compromised by this war on fossil fuels, et cetera, the green thing, that even if we were awash in oil, even if they filled Lake Mead with oil, it wouldn't really affect gas prices because they're not able to turn it into gasoline.
Yes, here, they're putting a lot of weight on this trip that things could get better for the oil markets.
But what has happened the last two years, it's been talked about, and I think a lot of people understand, including Democrats right now.
So you're bound to have a problem with the pricing of oil if the first thing you do is you interfere with drilling.
And we're no longer self-sufficient.
So then if there's drilling handicapped and some of it being closed down because the radical environmentalists, and then also the pipelines, pipelines that were working, pipelines that were on the verge of just opening.
And it's still the Europeans are rolling over for this.
They've done everything.
So yes, you make a good point.
You know, refining oil, forget it, because unless they come up with some decency, this is the reason why I had a false hope, I guess, when I saw after the Cold War that we would be trading more with people, China and Russia.
But you can see why free trade, if you're trading with people, they should bake off.
Right now, we still do business with China.
It's not like everything has stopped because it's so important, but everybody's playing to their hawkish element back at home.
And that happens here.
And it puts Biden in a bind because he has two influential groups, the people who have a little bit of common sense left, and then also the other ones who are the radicals that say, oh, it doesn't matter.
We want to get rid of all the oil.
And they've said that's their policy.
We don't want to use hydrocarbon.
And I think it's starting to add up.
And hopefully it's the kind of thing that wisdom tended to grow during COVID, the longer the pain and suffering can last.
The people did speak out, and that was good.
And I think maybe the people will speak out during this election year, because I do think that more than just Republicans, this isn't just complaining about the policies.
Of course, if you look at it as objectively as possible, you'll realize that the Republican military-industrial complex and their oil industry aren't exactly clean on all this, too.
And, you know, Republicans, unfortunately, I think, restored more excitement about tariffs and having sanctions, which have been very harmful overall, even in this whole thing about oil.
Yeah, it's pretty funny.
And the next thing we want to talk about now, I think, is a real hit scratcher, because a couple of days ago, Jake Sullivan, who has a lot of skeletons in his closet about Russia Gate, and maybe someday that'll come out, maybe if Congress changes hands, he came out a couple of days ago.
Dr. Paul, this is one of those things I see the headline, I think, this doesn't seem right.
This seems weird.
He came out, and after you put up that next clip, he came out and said, National Security Advisors from CNN, Jake Sullivan, says the U.S. has information indicating that Iran is preparing to supply Russia with drones, including weapons-capable drones, and begin training Russian forces on how to operate them as early as later this month.
And I immediately thought Iran, they've got some pretty rudimentary military construction capabilities, and Russia seems to be rolling out some pretty decent weapons.
And then I thought back, and thanks to our friends at Moon of Alabama and Bernard out there, who was thinking in a way what I was thinking, and that's this next clip, because it was Jake Sullivan just a couple of months ago, and this is back on March 13th.
Russia seeks military equipment and aid from China, U.S. officials say.
So Why would Russia be buying drones from Iran when it seems to be fully capable of building its own?
Well, I think there's a lot that goes into it.
And in fact, Dr. Paul, even a reporter for The Economist, the Russia-hating economist, tweeted this out.
And this is probably the first thing that goes through people's minds who are thinking about this, if we can put that up.
And this is Greg Karlstrom of The Economist saying, does Iran even have hundreds of weapons capable drones to export?
It has limited production capacity.
Would be surprising to say the least if it could churn out hundreds, let alone hundreds of useful weapons system rather than worthless, I can't pronounce the drone that they have.
So is this just propaganda?
Is it Jake Sullivan lying once again as he lied about the Chinese supplying Russia with weapons, which was absolutely false?
Maybe that's too complicated.
But maybe what's going on here is that they've discovered free market competition.
And there's a couple companies over there just vying for their business.
It has nothing to do with politics.
It has nothing to do with Americans buying most of these weapons.
And somehow or another, we've said that, you know, we talked about this in Ukraine.
Where do the weapons really go?
And for a long, long time, I think I came across this obvious fact that when we send money and weapons to various countries in foreign aid, and you make the point quite frequently, that the money never goes over there.
The money just goes to the manufacturers here in this country.
But my discovery was that if you pause long enough and you send a lot of weapons, the weapons never got into the hands of our friends that we were supporting.
And lo and behold, some of those weapons were actually used against us.
Just think of, you know, when we leave an area like, I guess Afghanistan would be an example.
What did we leave behind there?
It certainly was true when we had to rapidly exit Vietnam.
We do all those weapons, and then they get sold.
What happened when things had to be cleaned up a little bit in Libya?
The weapons ended up in Syria.
You know, there's still a market out there, but it's not the kind of market we're trying to promote.
The timing is so weird.
So why out of the blue is Sullivan coming out and saying, we've got some reports that the Iranians are selling drones to those evil Russians?
We'll put on the next clip, and I think this is an explanation for it.
The next one, actually, if we can.
And this is the point.
President Vladimir Putin to visit Iran next week.
His visit to coincide with Joe Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia to ask for oil.
And this is our friends at Moon of Alabama also pointed out.
This is a way of putting Russia and Iran in the same nasty camp right as Biden is visiting Saudi's enemies, Iran's enemies in Saudi Arabia.
And he's also going to try to bribe Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel.
So going over there bashing Iran, they think, will help.
And I think that's the origin of this pretty tall tale that they're going to be selling some drones.
Why We Left Congress00:07:10
You know, we talked a lot about when it was occurring in 2014 about the coup and the takeover of an elected leader in Ukraine and the subsequent problems that that led to.
But what about if you were a theoretician, you're just thinking about it.
I wonder what the world would have been like if we were never involved in the coup in 1953.
Yeah.
I mean, yes, there were problems.
There were differences in religious beliefs and politics and all.
But it wasn't a guarantee back then if we wouldn't have gotten rid of an elected leader in Iran that it wouldn't have sowed the seeds of what lasted, continues to last.
But last and really led up to the hostage taking and everything else.
Well, intervention leads to more intervention.
That's the more to undo it.
Anyway, Jake Sullivan, I don't know, he is a pretty bad guy, I wish, to be honest.
Well, the next is an interesting article, and this is all kind of on the same thing.
It's about military spending.
But this is from a piece in Responsible Statecraft, I think, from yesterday or today.
We can even put that up if you don't mind.
It's kind of an old story, but it's got to be retold because it continues to recur.
Congress showers the Pentagon with cash while Americans pinch pennies.
And I like the way that the author of this article combines the two.
We are in a real bind here at home, Dr. Paul, on our economy.
What does Congress do?
More money for weapons.
And I'll just do the quick quote before putting it back to you.
If we can put on that next clip, because this is the clip from the article.
Yet this week he's talking about the bad economy.
Yet this week Congress is on track to give the Pentagon $37 billion more than the military even asked for.
You know, that's the real irony.
It's supposed to be that there's a little bit of competition there.
And why it sounds like it originated in the executive branch.
This is supposed to originate in the legislative branch and work its way through.
But it doesn't happen that way.
And it is amazing how often the Congress, I don't know what that vote was, but I think we did talk about the vote.
Most of the time it's very bipartisan.
You know, oh, yeah, we need to increase this.
And then they'll all go home in the same thing, that they're strict constitutionalists and they believe in limited government.
We have to defend, and the other one that practically nauseates me is we have to defend American democratic liberty.
You know, democracy is their sacred word that they use.
It has nothing to do with their freedom that the Constitution has given us.
And, you know, they actually, you know, convince themselves.
I think it's self-deception.
They certainly don't feel badly about it.
So the whole principle of the Constitution that has been eroded steadily, especially bad in the last hundred years, and then in the last 10 or 15, it's accelerated.
It's just terrible how they can do this and have no remorse whatsoever and believe that they are the true constitutionalists.
And some of them are a little bit honest, but we don't even believe in that stuff.
We want to get rid of the Constitution.
We need to start all over again and make it very clear that this is a responsibility of the people who have been duly elected, you know, to take care of them, make everybody safe, and police the world and bring about peace and prosperity for everyone.
Well, you really hit it on the head, Dr. Paul, when you talk about the slogans they use.
And these slogans are a scam that they use to justify destroying our economy even further.
And they say, well, we've got to spend this money to keep America strong, to keep America safe.
Well, that's not what it's all about.
And this is a link that was in the Responsible Statecraft article.
It was a link to a 2021, May 2021 study made by the Institute for International Policy.
And I want to put up this next clip because this is what it's really about, Dr. Paul.
This is an executive compensation top five Pentagon contractors in 2020 in millions of dollars.
This is the CEO and total executive team pay for these companies.
Lockheed Martin, CEO, $23.3 million a year.
Raytheon, $19 million a year.
General Dynamics, $20 million.
Boeing, $21.1 million.
North Grumman, $20.8 million.
Total executive compensation at Lockheed, almost $90 million, $90, $60, $60.
So what this is all about, Dr. Paul, is not keeping America strong and safe.
As you know better than anyone, it's about enormous salaries for people who sell war and destruction in mayhem and a little bit of crumbs sprinkled over the think tanks that come out with the papers saying we need more war overseas.
And this is what it's all about.
It has nothing to do with keeping America safe.
When I was looking at this, I thought that they did a very good job in describing the professionalism from their viewpoint.
They're shrewd.
They know how to do it.
They've had the experience and they have a lot of money.
So they spread it around.
They indicated there was $100 million spent on lobbying.
You have a good lobbyist.
A good lobbyist is worth 10 members of Congress.
That's how they trade it off.
And then they appeal to former members of Congress.
Why would that be?
Well, some of them have very good jobs, and they know what they are.
How about the military pundits on television?
I imagine they get paid for that, their objectivity that they have.
And they have that.
And then the rich people involved in all this, and they can afford it because they have so much money coming from the taxpayers when they run it up in the budget.
No wonder they vote to increase it.
How about the think tanks?
They get to deduct it.
There will be a tax deduction for them there.
And this describes the whole industry, the military-industrial complex.
And I didn't realize how many different ways they can do it.
They can just be flat out dishonest and like World Empire, which is probably correct.
And these are just the tools and the efforts on how they are able to grab hold and grab control of it.
And that is why they have access to the members of Congress.
Boy, if you've been a chairman of one of those committees that dealt with military expenditure, and then you retire, I think they're, it's more than a golden parachute.
Why It's a Big Deal00:02:22
It's a big deal for them.
And it's not like one in two people.
It's a lot of people.
A lot of people.
Well, it's a lot easier to fall in love with World Empire when it's building you a big mansion in McLean, right?
Yeah.
It's easy to convince yourself that they're doing the Lord's work.
Well, I'm going to, do you have, you have something else you want to bring up about voting, I think.
Yeah, this is just a head scratcher.
You know, I think it annoys me personally.
Why don't I just relax?
It's no big deal.
Then I say, no, I think this is a big deal.
I agree.
There's a law, there's a law, a suit in Arizona because they had a vote that said, they were extreme.
I mean, you know, the people in Arizona.
They're just way out of it.
They had this idea that if you have people coming in to vote, that they should identify themselves.
Oh, my goodness.
Yeah, we want to know if you're a citizen.
So that's what it's all about.
Can they have illegals vote?
And the DOG is sun, Arizona because they have a law that says this, and it's going to be fought out for a long time.
But you know, the way I see this is, let's say you have the individual walk in, and he's absolutely illegal.
He's been in town for a week.
And he gets his directions.
He says, do this.
You don't have to answer any questions.
Just go in, and you'll see a ballot like this.
We'll tell you what to do.
It'll tell you how to vote.
And so he goes in and gives a vote.
And lo and behold, it's a vote for the big spenders.
But what if then you or I walk in and we decide we're going to vote?
We've already been canceled.
Yeah, that's true.
You know, they say that we're protecting the right of that individual, that he'd never be denied the right to vote just because he hasn't lived here long enough and all that.
And they turn it around and say it's bigotry toward the people who aren't citizens.
At the same time, they're really, you know, penalizing the American.
And what happens if they get two people to do that and there's only one that went in and voted?
You know, then the vote changes.
Yeah, but you know, you've got to get Biden re-elected.
Promoting Truth Amid Compromise00:04:56
So whatever it is.
Right.
So I'm going to close out just to remind everyone again because we have a very short window of opportunity to this next one.
Apply today to be a 2022 Ron Paul Scholar.
This is RonPaulInstitute.org.
We've got the day before our Washington conference, that would be September 2nd, an all-day seminar for Upper Division grad and grad students.
Great lecturers, great opportunity to meet other students with similar perspectives on non-interventionism and civil liberties.
It's a great event.
You attend the conference the next day.
As you know, Dr. Paul, this will be our third time holding this.
We've got scholarships available to those who are selected.
We got a big slew of applications yesterday after I announced it.
I want a huge slew so that we can get the best candidates.
And again, thanks to our generous donors, we do have scholarships available to defray the cost of attending.
So why not just go ahead and apply and become a Ron Paul 2022 scholar.
Dr. Paul?
Very good.
And I want to just add that Daniel puts a lot of time in this.
Believe me, there's a lot of administrative work going into this because, you know, there's things I like to do and I like to study.
I like to participate.
I like to, you know, what's happening in politics.
I'm interested in economics.
But the job that Daniel does, keeping up with this and being organized.
And, you know, when the day the convention starts and our meetings, he's a little bit nervous, but not much.
But he really feels good when it's over because everybody pats him on the back.
So we're looking forward to it.
And we want to be sure that everybody that watches our program and supports us and comes to our conventions know how much we appreciate your support.
Because this is a vehicle that we use as a goal to promote peace and prosperity.
And I think the big issue is who's telling the truth.
And we've never had perfection in society.
We've had people on one side that will do a good job in seeking out the truth and promoting the truth.
And then we have others that are absolutely impossible.
So you have liberty-minded people versus the authoritarians.
And there's a battle, an intellectual battle that goes on.
And there are some days we feel good about it.
Matter of fact, I feel better about how we're making progress there in the area of issues than I do on the political system.
I've sort of learned to be a little bit numb with what's happening in Washington, even though I'm hopeful that they'll do something this year that will be interpreted in the right manner.
That it just doesn't interpret it means, well, we have to change our intervention, our support, and our spending a little bit, and that'll satisfy our base.
Maybe we even need more money in the military-industrial complex.
That's what we don't need.
We need people that will come together, and that's why we're so interested in trying to get a coalition of progressive-minded people who understand civil liberties and non-interventionist foreign policy, coming together with libertarian and conservative constitutionalists, coming together, because the coalition of the hardcore Democrats in the Democratic Party, as well as in the Republican Party,
the military-industrial complex influence there is also noticeable.
So, I think that has to be that's what I work with in my mind: trying to bring people together.
Instead, you know, there's one thing that they'll say, we have to compromise.
Why don't you guys compromise?
Why you want $100 million, he wants $50 million?
Why don't you compromise?
Just settle five for $75 million and pass it.
I think that's the wrong way to do because the person who sacrificed 25% or $25 million have given away the principle of liberty.
All you have to do is sacrifice a little bit, and you've sacrificed the whole principle.
And that's what we've been doing.
We've been nibbling away, and a lot of people say, Well, we'll just do, we'll have a little bit of intervention, we'll send some food stamps over there to help our dictator friend and let him take care of things.
No, that isn't right.
Non-intervention is easily definable, and non-aggression is easily definable.
Non-intervention's foreign policy is definable.
Honest money is definable.
Telling the truth actually can be, you know, can be figured out because I think most people have an instinct and know what telling the truth really means.
But I do want to thank you once again for joining us with the Liberty Papport today.