All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
30:48
Beltway Conservative Groups Begin To Oppose Endless Ukraine Gravy Train

After tens of billions have been shoveled into the black hole of Ukraine, known as the most corrupt country in Europe, Beltway conservative groups are belatedly waking up to the dollar hemorrhage. With a new $14 billion dollar giveaway on the table, groups such as Heritage Action and Center for Renewing America are screaming "enough!" Also today: one astrophysicist shocks the world.

|

Time Text
Political Benefits and Heritage Spending 00:12:28
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?
I'm doing fine and damn.
Good, good, good.
We've got to try and save some money because we're running out.
No, you're really not saving money.
We don't use money.
Cut down on the speed of the printing presses, pumping out the fiat.
But this is minor compared to the big money things, but this is a big statistic and big policy that we want to talk about because they're hopefully, and I'm not all that hopeful that it's going to work, but some conservative groups have stood up now as we're into the third big appropriation for the Ukrainians.
And Heritage, and along with the Veterans Group, I think they've been conservative.
Heritage has lost their reputation, but this is good.
They're saying, you're looking for another $13.7 billion.
And the arms manufacturers are just smiling.
They've invited Zelensky over there to have a party.
I guess they're already celebrating.
They'll probably get the money.
But at least there's a movement on and say, enough is enough.
And are we going to, really the option is continue to do this and disrupt the economy, which they will do, or play the game that, oh, we're cutting back.
We're getting rid of inflation and all this.
But I think one clip today was we're very close to $31 trillion debt.
30 lasted for, I don't know how long.
It used to take about 200 years, no, more than 200 years to get a trillion dollars.
Now we do it maybe a couple months.
This is terrible.
But it's good that there's a discussion on.
And I think also, if you looked at it from the political viewpoint, most of the time the American people aren't too worried about the spending, especially since they always figure, well, what else can you do?
You've got to send me my check.
So they're thinking that maybe some people are waking up, especially over Ukraine.
Because I think people started to realize, where is this Ukraine?
Where is this located?
And maybe Zelensky hasn't been a good PR person, for all we know.
But the PR people are hidden.
They're in the deep state.
The PR people for this spending is very competitive even against Heritage and the rest of them.
And they happen to be those individuals who have companies that make weapons for the government.
So when we talk about this, and you make this point so often, you're really not talking about sending a check over to Ukraine.
You say, oh, it just goes right over to the company.
And they do well.
So I guess that's why they're having Zelensky in there for a picnic or something like that.
They're going to entertain them because, you know, they have the same interests at heart.
Yeah, here's the worst thing about it.
You know, but you mentioned PR firms, but a lot of this money that's stolen from us to give to Ukraine, which, by the way, not long ago, as in a few months ago, was widely understood to be the most corrupt country in Europe.
The money that we send over there goes to hire PR firms to lobby our government to give more money.
So it's round and around and around.
Well, let's put up this first clip.
And you know, Dr. Paul, I like good news, and it's very rare that we get some.
And thanks to our friends on anti-war.com, we saw this this morning.
This is from Defense One.
Conservative groups urging lawmakers to vote no on more Ukraine aid.
And this is very, very important.
The White House announced on Friday that, as you say, Dr. Paul, they want another nearly $14 billion.
That's after the $40 billion in May, and then another $14 billion, I think, in March.
So sooner or later, these 30 or 40 or 60 or 80 billion is going to start adding up.
And we've talked for a long time about the fact that this policy will change when Americans start waking up and understanding that the reason they can't afford their energy costs, their food, the reason they're being told to eat bugs, is that this money is being sent down a black hole, a pit.
And it's not just going to corrupt Ukraine, but as you rightly point out, Dr. Paul, it's going to the corrupt U.S. military contracting conglomerate, the military industrial complex.
But the good news, I think, is this, and we can put on the next one, that next clip here, and this will explain what we're talking about.
The White House announced Friday with Request 13.7.
Conservative groups such as Heritage Action and Concerned Veterans for America quickly urge lawmakers to reject this plea.
That's a good start.
And just do the next one because, and this is even better, it gets better because the president for the Center for Renewing America, which is a Trump-linked group, Russ Vought, he has a great quote about this.
He said, the American people are tired of the neoconservative policy consensus that demands billions of their tax dollars be spent to defend the integrity of Ukraine's border when resources and stewardship cannot be found to address our own.
He said this new package will prolong a fight that lacks an American dog, allowing regional allies to shirk their security responsibilities yet again.
You know, I think on this issue right now, between now and the election, there's a benefit to the Republicans for taking a position that I think the people want.
Most of the time, the people ignore the spending because it's never-ending and they don't worry about it.
Right now, they're starting to worry about it.
I was kidding you.
I said, maybe some of them woke up one day.
I wonder what this Ukraine is.
Where is this country anyway?
But on the short run, I think there are some benefits.
Hopefully that we can contribute to the continuation of it.
But nothing changes if you don't change the policy.
Because we don't have to go back into ancient history to find that when Republicans were fully in charge, they spent a lot of money.
You know, the Bush-Cheney years, it was wartime spending like crazy.
So ultimately, it has to be policy, but it's good that the groups are waking up.
They sense what's going on in the public.
And the public now is saying enough is enough.
And the politicians will do this.
And so there's a political benefit.
And that's good that there's a political benefit that sort of serves our interest in making the point, well, if it's good for the next two weeks or so, why can't this policy be good for the next two years or two decades from now that balancing budgets and the fiscal conservative is a good way to go?
But on the short run, you know, let's just have another drink, let's just keep dancing.
Yeah.
But I will constantly, when I have the opportunity, to make the point that it has to be long-term, it has to be policy, and that will make the difference.
So this I see as a point, they're making a good point, and we cheer them on, and they shouldn't back down, even if they do very well, or especially if they do very well in the elections.
Well, maybe you're on the right track.
Yeah, and it's this next chart, let's look at this, because I think every American needs to look at this chart because it is so important where military aid to Ukraine comes from.
Now look at how far ahead of everyone the U.S. is on this chart.
We are, the United States is shoveling money faster than it can possibly shovel into Ukraine.
But again, as we say, it's not going to Ukraine.
It's going across the Beltway to the military-industrial complex.
But that's an important chart to show how much more than anyone else the U.S. is spending on this.
And the other thing now, and I think this that heritage groups and the other groups, and hopefully there will be more that start waking up and realizing, as you say, Dr. Paul, there's a pretty good political angle here on this, and it's a fiscal conservative angle that you can go on.
The last time around when they voted for $40 billion, there were 57 House Republicans who voted no, which is a start.
And 11 Republican senators voted no.
I think a great move would be to double that, to have every Republican vote no.
And I think Americans can certainly, we don't usually talk about legislation, but when this comes up, and it'll come up soon, Americans should call the representatives, especially their conservatives and progressives, because that's another area where you're starting to see some slippage with progressives starting to get slightly worried about this war, war, war spending.
So if you have people on these sides contacting and urging a no vote, you can really start getting some traction, I think.
Most of the time we hear talk when they want to get more money to participate in an event like this.
They talk about national security and our interests.
We have to protect our interests.
There hasn't been too much of that because that's just a joke anyway.
And they're doing this.
But we're doing it in the name of something maybe a little bit worse.
We're doing it for internationalism, globalism, part of the NATO, party, United Nations.
We're the peacemakers, and yet that's breaking up too.
If the American people are getting sick and tired of it, some of these other countries.
But here are the bunch of countries they put in their nickels and dimes, but we end up paying.
But I guess, in theory, that's probably not too big a surprise because we still claim ownership of the empire, and we have the reserve currency, and therefore, people still are wanting to use our dollars.
But I think people are sensing that there may be a coming into it.
So if conservatives wake up and they laugh at this whole thing on Biden that says, okay, we have to spend more money to stop inflation.
People figure, well, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I think, you know, hopefully this will call attention to the real problems.
And that's what we'll keep our eyes on.
Yes, and let's look at this next one because you alluded to it.
And I think this is classic.
This says everything you need to know if you look at this next clip.
This is from The Hill.
Zelensky to headline U.S. Defense Industry Conference.
You're right, he is their star because he's the one that's remodeling their bathrooms for them.
New house in McLean.
You know, drove around when I was in D.C.
I drove around some of the old areas, looking at some of the mansions.
And you know those mansions were not built on honest work.
But that's what it's all about.
So they're cutting out the middleman.
They're cutting out Uncle Sam and going directly to the gravy train, which is Zelensky.
But here's what's interesting is that from all of this, comes out, and we have a piece from Walt Zlotov on Ron Paul Institute website.
And this is what's really important.
I think this is the deep, deep corruption that someday will get out.
And the article that he wrote is, why did the U.S. torpedo the April Ukraine war negotiated settlement?
And this is a fascinating piece by Fiona Hill, who's been in the Pentagon.
She's not in it now, but she was in under Trump and Obama.
You know, she's forever.
But she wrote a recent piece where she discussed that back in April, there was essentially an agreement made between Russia and Ukraine that would have ended the war.
And this is when they were talking with Turkey.
Turkey was facilitating the talks.
And essentially, they had a settlement which would have ended the war at that time.
Boris Johnson, which he wouldn't do anything without permission from Washington, he immediately flew to Kiev and put the gabosh on this agreement.
So literally, the U.S. and the UK are responsible for the continuation of this horrible war.
They had an agreement.
Even Fiona Hill, who's no peacenak by any stretch, admitted this is what happened.
Why Governments Inflate 00:08:36
And hopefully, some more people start asking why.
Why did they do this?
You know, when governments inflate, as we are, and having the reserve currency in the world, you can talk about what it's supposed to do, but they can't control it.
The money seems to filter around and the special interests get involved.
But it's always been said over time that real estate is always good in the Washington area.
And, you know, during the 60s, I mean, in the 20s, property values went up around the country, but then in the Deep Depression, they actually went down, but not in Washington, D.C. Right now, there's ups and downs.
There's a little bit of correction now.
We don't know who's going to win the fight between deflation and inflation.
And even if there's inflation, it's not likely to be fully directed without interest like this, because there's going to be a lot of money when we pass it on.
Oh, yeah, you can come build a really fancy castle up here.
You guys are used to castles, aren't you?
We'll get you a castle as long as you do what we tell you.
Yeah, it is amazing.
But we have to protect Ukraine's democracy.
So there you have it.
Well, let's move on a little bit and let's cross our fingers, really, that conservative groups are going to start waking up a little bit to this, to what's happening.
But the next is something we just can't ignore because it was such a great little clip.
And this is an astrophysicist who happens to be the brother of the former labor leader in the UK.
He was invited on an RT show to talk about global warming.
And in fact, let's just play this.
It's a two-minute clip.
It's a long clip.
But you just can't.
I wanted to try to condense it to 30 seconds.
You just can't do it.
You have to appreciate it in all its beauty, especially the reaction of the TV host when things didn't go as planned.
Let's listen in on this.
The smog-filled cities and poor harvests are being seen by some environmentalists as signs of climate change.
Let's now cross live to London to discuss this with Piers Corbyn.
He's an astrophysicist and also founder of Weather Action.
Good to have you.
Thanks very much indeed for joining us live there in London.
So what we're seeing here is a drastic change in climate, aren't we?
Well, climate has always been changing, but this has nothing to do with man.
In fact, we predicted that there would be extreme heat in East Europe and Russia this summer.
And it's caused by a certain circulation pattern.
CO2 does not cause circulation patterns.
What causes those is combination of solar activity and the state of the phases of the moon.
Hang on, Piers, waiting for me.
Excuse me, just a minute.
You say this isn't caused by man.
How come they're reporting this heat wave is recognized as the worst in a thousand years of recorded history in Russia?
And man has got something to do with this, hasn't he?
No.
Nothing to do with it.
The only connection is man is here at the same time as the sun and the moon are doing things.
You see, a very similar situation happened about 132 years ago, where there was the same sun, earth, lunar magnetic states.
There were heat waves in Russia, and there were also floods in Pakistan as now.
And in the previous few years, there was also floods in the English summers, also 132 years ago.
So these things are dictated by solar activity in the moon.
They're nothing to do with man crying down those who say that.
They're just trying to make money.
Good God.
But are we not going to see this?
Are we not going to see this again next year, the year on?
I mean, it's only quite recent.
That's a very interesting question.
These things do come in bursts.
And we're working on that very question, those forecasts.
We did say there would be a series of wet summers in England, for example, which we've had.
Now, will there be a series of these very hot, hot summers in Russia?
We don't know.
We have to work on that.
But I assure you, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
And if you stop driving around Moscow, it won't affect next summer one job.
Well, how come then so many climate change scientists disagree with you and they get so much surprise for what they say?
They're on a gravy train to have it.
Russia's deadly wild fancy.
That was a great two minutes.
It's such a surprise and such a gift.
Here's something.
You know, what's wrong with this?
What people don't understand.
The guys tell the truth.
But you know, I remember, you know, Donald Trump gives his opinion.
And it's been, you know, written about for years about sunspots having something to do with it.
But it's always been ridiculed.
And the official position is it has nothing to do with it.
And if you were, you'd get canceled.
But I remember Trump saying things like this.
Oh, it's a sunspot, sunspot.
And he was ridiculed to death.
So this is another one.
But it's probably, on the short run, it probably isn't worth the effort to try to convert all the people who are lying about it and say, okay, you're going to change your mind, aren't you?
Just march on.
Because eventually you wake up.
That guy sounded so, so authentic.
There's another quote in there that I thought was just great.
And they were talking about doing science.
And the physicist said, the one thing is that we don't do is settle.
We don't do it if it's a settled opinion.
That's not their job.
Their job is to investigate and debate.
And I got to thinking, what about natural immunity?
You know, how they took that.
And, oh, it's settled.
How many times have we heard that?
This is settled science.
And the way he describes it, that puts it out of the category of science to study it.
Oh, it's already settled.
So it's interesting.
It'll be, you know, I was a little surprised that RT had it on there, but I was delighted.
And the great thing is that Corbyn didn't, he wasn't trying to convince anyone in anything.
He wasn't trying to lobby for a position.
He was just saying, what are you talking about?
This is reality.
And he says, so the anchor says, well, surely man has something to do with this weird weather.
And he says, no, the only connection is man is here at the same time the sun and moon are doing things.
And he said, how can you be saying this when so many other people are saying the opposite?
Well, those that say that are just trying to make money.
They're on the gravy train, for heaven's sake.
And it's so refreshing to hear an honest voice not trying to convince anyone, just saying what's true.
And it is a fact.
You know, it's funny, when I was back in D.C., took my daughters back to the Smithsonian, the Natural History Museum.
They've redone a lot of it.
Up-to-date, modern displays.
Very, very impressive, I have to say, the way it looks.
They put some money into it.
The problem is the whole thing is fake.
All the news is fake in there because every single display is hitting you over the head with man is changing the climate.
Man is changing the climate.
And there's one display that was hilarious because it talked about there was an ice age here and then there was warming here.
And so recognizing that the earth does change millions of years ago, but now it's changing because of us.
So all of a sudden.
So it's just completely illogical.
It was pretty funny if you can see through it, but the whole thing is completely fake.
Term right now that is being thrown around because if you're guilty you're in big trouble, and that's dealing with fascism, which has lost its meaning because you know the fascists and the anti-fascists and and the careless use of terms is such that nobody knows exactly what's going on.
And I've used it a lot of times and I think but I usually use it in that we don't have true communism or socialism now, but we have interventionism with mischief.
But the term I like to use is corporatism yeah, where there's partnership in it, which was something Mussolini liked and it eventually turned on badly and I think we have that.
So this, this is this is what they're doing now to they're making money, so they're corporatists in a way.
Okay, you have some money out there and environment stuff.
Just think, just think of that, Larry Fink.
He has the biggest asset management company at $10 trillion.
All based on non-science yeah, and the use of just intimidating and locking people out.
Why We Shouldn't Be Excited 00:04:30
So the message here is why we get excited is that we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be so excited about somebody casually, who knows some science, in about three minutes, just casually makes a statement which we happen to believe is true, and we think it's.
We think it's an exciting moment.
That's probably the sad part of it, because there was a time when, you know, even politicians and the FBI and others were more credible.
Right now, the credibility is so low that when you get glimpse of that of how often have we searched and find hey, we've got something positive to say about this, so that's, we need more positive things going on.
But everything is up for grabs.
We can grasp, because what we have to do is go through the ringing out and that's where the danger will be.
You know, the language is used as a weapon.
So anyone who may find Corbyn's view attractive and may want to research it, well, you're a denier.
You don't just have a different view of things.
You're a climate denier.
If you think there might have been some shenanigans in the elections, oh, you're an election denier.
You know, you are a science denier if you believe in natural immunity.
I was just thinking, can you imagine what his reaction is going to be when he's probably going to have some terrible things said about him?
We're going to deny him.
But he probably doesn't even blink an eye.
He's so irrelevant from what he's doing.
He's a scientist and he's just speaking it and that's it.
But maybe because they will try to destroy him, he'll get more attention.
Yeah, hopefully.
Well, let's move along to our last piece because this is important too.
And put up that Ron Paul Institute clip.
We're going to skip one clip and go straight ahead to the RPI one.
This is from our website.
Adam Dick, who is our senior fellow, he did a great piece a couple of days ago.
California bill on governor's desk puts in jeopardy medical licenses of doctors who do not toe the line on coronavirus.
Little bit of a long title, but that's okay.
Essentially what it means in a nutshell is that if you're a doctor in California and you don't do exactly what the political leadership says in terms of coronavirus or probably anything else, you just simply lose your license.
You know, this sort of can apply to what the physicists said that we don't do settled settled science.
Science is supposed to be studying.
And here, that's how they've silenced so many people.
Well, this is settled.
And if you don't go along with the consensus, then you're stupid, or you might lose your job.
That sort of thing.
But the real evil is found in our educational systems, in the colleges, grade schools, too.
Just think about how this monstrosity, these social issues have infiltrated grade schools and everything else.
So it's in there.
And that is one thing that we should not ignore because they should have taught people a lesson how powerful they are by infiltrating over a period of time.
They didn't start two weeks ago or two months ago.
It was a strategy they had been working on.
And there's bits and pieces, and a lot of people join it.
But it really was initiated, I think, over 100 years ago to teach this nonsense.
It was certainly the economic system.
You know, they had to change people's minds and convince everybody that deficits don't matter.
But I think what happens when it goes so outrageous, just like the lockdown, got so outrageous, that finally people say that enough is enough.
And I think we're at that point.
So join in, folks.
Enough is enough.
And it's not confusing.
Anybody who wants to know and understand the difference between interventions, socialistic authoritarianism from a free society and claim that the managers of our lives and our property and the economy make it all better off for us, you know, you're kidding yourself.
They're making it better for themselves, but that'll end too.
Yeah, you know, it's sort of this historical determinism of the Soviet Union.
History progresses along the rules that we, the Communist Party, make.
The Erosion of Trust 00:05:12
And that's exactly what they're doing in California.
Science progresses along the way that we, the politicians, make.
And it's, you know, I would like to think in an optimistic way that once you have to resort to outlawing dissent, then you're losing the argument.
And that is the case.
And ironically, a lot of the dissent that happened turned out to be true.
You know, the idea that the vaccines were not vaccines at all, that was true, although you were canceled if you said that.
Alex Berenson was kicked off of Twitter.
Now he's back for saying the obvious.
Masks don't work.
Senator Rand Paul and many others were critical of the masks.
Social distancing, the head of the CDC admitted that they just made up the six-foot difference.
So all of these things that were challenged turned out to be true.
But now if this law passes in California, in fact we can put on that next, this is a little bit of a clip from that, just so we can remember.
Yeah, AB 2098 is the bill would punish doctors.
The state medical board will take away their license if they do the things that they effectively did before.
The only thing that I can say as a silver lining, Dr. Paul, is that federalism may take over and all these good doctors who are thinking for themselves in California, if they get kicked out, maybe they'll come to Texas and Florida and other free states, hang up their shingle there because we need these kinds of doctors.
You know, who knows?
Some of them will end up in Washington contributing to the garbage they pass out there to manage care.
You know, you've heard me say it so many times because in the last couple years especially, I said what they're destroying is the most valuable part of medicine and is a doctor-patient relationship, the trust in the doctor.
And that doesn't mean the doctor is infallible.
Matter of fact, it's really the opposite, that discussing it and conversing and discussing it with other doctors and searching for the right answers.
And that is what's been destroyed because if you start doing that, what if we know the doctors that said ivermectin is a pretty good drug and saves a lot of lives?
And instead of having started immediately and had a double-blind study someplace and resolve it, what'd they do?
They punished you if you even wanted to discuss it.
So really, the threat to our medical care system is one thing, but it's really the threat to the First Amendment.
That you can't speak without being punished because you didn't toe the line and fit the scenario that the pharmaceutical companies might have wanted you to say.
Yeah, of course, yeah, you can't take ivermectin, but you know, they gave my dad, Remdesavir, thousands of dollars in treatment that the hospital got for that, and they killed him with it.
Remdesavir killed him, not COVID.
So they can kill you real easy by doing that, and it has consequences.
But I'm going to close out now if you think we're ready.
I just want to thank our viewing audience for joining us.
We will have tickets on sale for our third and final conference of 2022.
And Dr. Paul, guess what?
It's about this exact topic.
It's about the war on speech.
And so it couldn't come at a better time.
Again, we are talking about COVID.
We're talking about the war on opening your mouth, whether it's on campus or anywhere else.
So we're going to have a really good lineup.
It's going to be down here in Lake Jackson.
So mark your calendars, and I'm hoping to put the tickets on sale in a day or two.
So hope to see everyone there again.
We had such a great time last time.
I always just look forward just to visiting with people.
Wonderful.
Yeah.
You know, people frequently will talk, libertarians among themselves and conservatives will say, well, which is the most important amendment to the Constitution?
And the first is my favorite because I figure that that is so important that you can talk and speak out and not be intimidated and not be arrested.
And then if you have a problem with any other detail of some particular liberty, then you can at least approach it.
So therefore, some people would say the Second Amendment is the most important because that's ultimately what you have to defend.
And I have no qualms with a proper understanding of the Second Amendment.
It is important, but I still lean toward the ability to speak out and not be intimidated and not be coerced, not being just a unit of a collective group.
If you don't have freedom of speech and freedom of thought, what you have is you don't have individual liberty, you have collective punishment.
So they didn't talk about one doctor.
Now they're talking about all doctors.
This is what we're going to do.
You guys are going to toe the line.
And our medical professions haven't been really a protector of the doctor-patient relationship because they have been very much involved with the pharmaceutical companies as well.
So I want to once again thank our viewers for tuning in today.
Export Selection