With the collaboration of most Senate Republicans, the US upper body "survived" a valiant filibuster effort by Sen. Rand Paul and others and passed a nearly $100 foreign military aid bill with any mention of the US border removed. Sen. Vance pointed out the several poison pills in the bill that would unconstitutionally bind any new Trump Administration, yet Senate Republicans ignored him. Also today: a panicked Congress seeks to forbid a future President Trump from getting out of NATO.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
We have lots of numbers to count.
We're counting the money as it's leaving the Treasury.
Actually, it doesn't leave the Treasury.
It leaves the pockets of the American people, and sometimes they don't realize that.
And literally, they don't have to do this old-fashioned robbery, you know, sticking them up, give me what's in your wallet.
I guess maybe they'll do that with crypto.
Give me your crypto.
But what they do is they just steal value, make sure your money's worth less, and that wealth is then transferred to the people who like to spend money.
Now, I listened to a little bit of Rand last night on this very special bill that we talked about.
He was very good on the monetary issue.
I like that.
And how that whole system works by just printing up the money.
And you think that is so logical.
Why won't a whole Senate two or three might be able to disagree?
But no, it's not that way.
It looks like the effort by a few in the Congress, a few Republicans, you know, thought it was a good time to show the foolishness of more foreign aid.
And so they had a mini filibuster, and I think Rand was very much involved in that.
But it was not even one of those big bills.
It was only $95 billion going to places where we've already wasted $95 billion, and then didn't go to the places where we probably needed some money.
But that shouldn't surprise us.
That's pretty typical of government.
One thing for sure, it's safe to say that governments are always inefficient.
I don't know one thing where you can say, well, the exception is they can run Social Security best and come up with, oh, they're good at fighting NATO wars.
They always win NATO wars in their minds, they do, and the people always lose.
But no, this was a big deal.
It didn't have money.
It was a special finance bill, mainly a foreign policy, foreign expenditure bill.
Then when you find out about it, guess what?
There were people, you know, I think a guy by the name of McConnell, is he a Republican?
He doesn't know.
He was working with this guy, Schumer, and they passed it rather easily.
But it's a big deal.
It involves national security, theoretically.
It involves home defense, border security.
But it's something that the American people are the ones who have to pay, and they will pay.
And this thing passed rather easily.
And therefore, we can expect that policy has not yet changed.
And I saw an inflation figure in the last, in the months, in the months Biden has been president.
And all the inflation that we have now is not Biden.
It's been going on for a long time.
But the price inflation, the conclusion of what we had been printing along the way, is starting to hit.
And his 18 months or however he's been president, very, very bad statistics.
You know, good reason why people are upset because even though he might not be responsible for all the prices going up right now, he certainly didn't do one thing to reassure the people that he knew and understood what it was all about.
Yeah.
Well, I'm going to, before I start out, I want to thank one of our viewers, Downing Thomas.
He started all day nice with a $20 donation to us.
He said, even the old folks get homeschooled by Ron Paul, which is nice.
But yeah, let's put up that first clip.
They called it a national security supplemental, but it had nothing to do with America, right?
It had nothing to do.
Senate passes $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, despite Trump attacks, that evil Trump.
This is from Politico.
So everyone knows the story by now.
They should.
They tried to put this turkey through with the border language.
You talked about it last week.
The border stuff was total garbage, totally terrible stuff.
And so they said, okay, we'll just take that out and we'll just give you a bill with aid.
But we won't even try to put a little bit of sugar with the medicine.
We'll just give you the aid bill.
And so that's what they did.
And as you mentioned, Senator Paul, Senator Vance, and a few others, they tried to filibuster last night.
They were up all night.
And in fact, Zero Hedge wrote about it, if you put that next one up.
Here's Senator Paul getting ready.
And the AP says, but 22 Republicans voted with nearly all the Democrats to pass the package 70 to 29.
So 22 Republicans crossed over and voted with the Dems in the Senate.
Supporters arguing that abandoning Ukraine could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I mean, how long have we been hearing this argument?
It's insane.
But among those leading the last stand, Zero Hedge rights was Senator Rand Paul, who vowed to hold out until, quote, hell freeze is over, and spoke out about the massive national debt on the Senate floor, as you point out.
Here's kind of a cute quote from Senator Paul.
I love to talk.
That's one of my favorite things to do.
Yes, and I slept up, and I slept all day yesterday waiting for this.
I'm going to take Adderall.
No, I'm just kidding.
You didn't want to get in trouble.
You'd get in trouble with dad and mom.
But that, you know, valiant efforts up all night, talking all night.
Yeah, okay.
They say, oh, ultimately, they didn't fail.
That's not the point.
They brought a lot of attention that would have been brought to it.
And I have a couple clips I want to play about it.
The first one is Senator Paul on the floor.
And he makes a great point.
Let's go up to that 52-second mark where he makes a great point about this turkey of a bill that 22 Republicans voted for.
Let's listen in.
A little bit slow on the internet here.
Here we go.
It's going to, well, we'll get that queued up while we're waiting.
See if we can see if we can get that to play.
I don't know.
A whole group of other thugs to assault a police officer in New York.
Just that image alone ought to be enough.
It's the middle finger to America.
Start from the beginning, please.
Often the titles of bills before the legislature don't really represent what the bill stands for.
The title of this bill should say, Ukraine First, America Last, because that's what this is really about.
Now, bills in the legislature, bills that come before the Senate, don't have pictures or covers on them like a book would have or a magazine.
But if this bill had an image or a cover on the front of the bill, the image would be the migrant in New York who assaulted a police officer, was freed from jail on no bail, and gave the middle finger of both hands to America.
That's what this bill is.
It's the middle finger to America.
This bill is the middle finger.
That's good.
You can take it off.
That's a pretty good.
That's pretty strong, but getting stronger all the time.
Yeah, that was great.
You know, I don't know whether you have more on him, but the one part I was watching this last night that I thought was just great because it was down my alley, and that was, but we don't have any money.
There is no money.
And he's put the question of, where are you going to get the money for this?
But you know what?
Nobody raised a hand.
I know where it is.
Let me explain it.
So it didn't happen.
But it's the question that there's a few of us over the years have been asking.
Of course, you could go down the list of the questions you ask.
Well, you don't have the money.
How about authority?
Where'd you get this authority to police the world and run an empire?
You know, they don't even ask those questions.
That's why they're not forced to answer it.
That's why it's really great when we bump into one of our libertarian journalists who do ask better questions.
And I would say we have a few more of those than we did five, ten years ago.
Yeah.
And progressives, you know, people like Glenn Greenwald and others on both sides that are asking the good questions.
But, you know, they didn't have a good argument for sending this money over.
House's Impeachment Power00:15:03
As you pointed out in your opening few comments, we already sent $100 billion over there to Ukraine.
It hasn't done a thing.
All it's done is depleted our own weapons.
We can't afford it.
We don't have the money.
But that money hasn't changed anything.
So what do they have next?
They can't say Ukraine is on the brink of victory because it's not.
And everybody knows it.
Even the Washington Post knows it.
They know that Ukraine is losing and will lose.
So all they have now is fear.
Fear is the only thing they have left.
And I have another clip.
This is Tucker Carlson's first comments after his famous interview that we discussed with Putin.
He has some great points that he's making about the war in Ukraine.
Let's go to that 46-second mark if we can.
It became very clear to anyone paying attention several months ago that Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia.
The Ukrainian military will not be able, even with Western backing, hundreds of billions of dollars of it, to expel the Russian military from parts of eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn't have the industrial capacity, neither does NATO or the United States.
And it doesn't have the people.
Russia has 100 million more in population than Ukraine does.
And that means that further support from the West for the Ukrainian military only means more dead Ukrainians in a further degraded Western economy in the U.S. and in Germany particularly.
So it's not simply a fool's errand.
It's self-destruction.
It's insane.
It's cruel.
It's abetting the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians.
This is cold hard facts.
Yeah, you know, this whole thing, this happened last night and the vote passed and passed easily in the coalition.
And there are the things that many people, including us, have warned about, and that is the collusion of the rhino-type Republicans and McConnell himself, who's losing steam on the leadership position.
But, you know, there are two houses, you know, i i in the Congress, and now this has to come back.
Should have whole thing should have I don't know whether how much of it originated, but they used to always have to originate.
But it doesn't always happen anymore.
But the thing now is that what's the Speaker going to do?
And he has his positions where he was when he was a little more independent as representing his only district.
But when you're in a leadership, I was told once when I asked somebody, why are you voting that way?
Why are you?
You used to work with me all the time.
And he looked at me and he says, I'm in leadership now.
So he had to be a follower because you're in the leadership.
But the big question of Will Johnson, Johnson's in a position where he can say, enough is enough.
We're not going to put this nonsense up for a vote in the House because there'd be a better fight there, too.
So it's, well, you know, if you're thinking strictly in political positions, he's in the middle of a mess.
And he has no easy solution because he's getting benefits from some people who aren't exactly his political allies, but he does that because he becomes a Speaker of the House.
That's why the system is not a good system.
But speaking of politics, though, you're in a situation now where Trump is a presumptive nominee.
There's no question.
And he's going to win the nomination.
And Trump has been very explicit about this.
He doesn't want any more money going.
He doesn't think this needs to continue.
So you have a Senate Republican caucus who's explicitly going against the next president who will have, and we'll talk about it later, constitutional authority over foreign policy.
And now you have in the House, where they have a majority, this possibility of them crossing someone who may well be the next U.S. president.
So that's a big issue, and it's a big problem.
But now you mentioned Rhino-Republicans.
That was great timing because my next clip I wanted to put up was the argument because we saw Tucker presenting cold, hard facts.
They simply don't have the manpower, the weapons.
They can't win the war.
So what do the Republicans have?
What does the opposition have?
All they have is fear.
Speaking of rhinos, here's Mitt Romney, your favorite senator.
And here's what he says last night on the floor.
I'm just going to read that.
We're not going to be asked to send American troops into war only to help the Ukrainians defend themselves.
If we fail to help Ukraine, Putin will invade a NATO nation.
Ukraine is not the end.
It's a step.
And letting Putin have his way with Europe will jeopardize our security.
The old discredited domino theory.
So what does he base this on?
Putin will invade a NATO nation.
He just explicitly told Tucker that he had, he said, what would I want to do that for?
We have enough land.
We're the biggest country in the world.
Why would I want to invade a nation of people who hate me?
I mean, it's just mindless.
Speaking of mindless, our own Senator Cornyn, who's been in there way too long, if you ask me, put this next one up because Senator Cornyn said, Speaker Johnson is right.
We can't allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don't believe it would stop there.
It would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan.
And someone commented, Big Surge, who I follow was very astute, he commented on this saying, the idea that Xi in China will change his calculus on Taiwan based on attrition rates in the Donbass is so cartoonish that only an American senator could believe in it.
It's a great way of taking apart that ridiculous argument that the Chinese premier is going to see the Donbass fall and say, now's my chance.
And yeah, we've elected ourselves to be the leader of the world.
You know, we have our empire, which is now weakening, and for reasons, because we've run out of steam, like we've run out of money and run out of principle and the morality of what we do and any promise to follow our rules, the Constitution, basically have been omitted.
That doesn't come up in the debate.
Oh, no, no.
Except for a few.
So, but they're also doing other things in there by trying to restrain Trump in the future.
Yeah.
You know, that's something we want to mention.
Yeah, we do.
And I just wanted to put up a comment from the speaker because, and we talked about it before.
We're going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you put that next one up, he said, I'm not going to read this whole long thing, but he basically said, essentially what he said is that they didn't do anything about the border.
They said they would.
I said I wouldn't move a bill that doesn't have border stuff in it.
So we're just going to ignore what's happening in the Senate.
Now, let's hope that he holds true to this because it will be important.
But yeah, you mentioned this, and this is something really interesting that caught our attention.
Now, Senator Vance, he's a smart guy.
He may have caught it himself.
He may have a smart staff.
You never know.
But someone caught this.
Put the next one on.
He actually wrote an article for the American Conservative, The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump.
And it sounds ominous, but actually, if you look at what he found in the bill, go to this next clip.
He tweeted it out.
I just sent this below memo to every one of my Republican colleagues in Congress.
Buried in the bill's text is an impeachment time bomb for the next Trump presidency if he tries to stop funding the war in Ukraine.
We must vote against this disastrous bill.
So you can say that the other senators were forewarned by Senator Vance, and we'll go through the details.
But essentially what it is is, Dr. Paul, it's exactly what they tried to nail Trump on last time.
They put in the money for Ukraine, and they told Trump, you better send it.
And he hesitated.
He put it on pause.
And what was the, he went against the consensus of the, whatever, the security community, and they impeached him for it.
So in this bill is that same language.
So the first, I think, 10 months or something of Trump's presidency, even longer than that, if he doesn't give this money to Ukraine, they're going to use the same argument and impeach him again.
Yes, you know, as I was growing up and becoming aware of what was happening in the government and in our schools, they frequently mentioned that impeachment only occurred one time, you know, in our history.
And that was a long history because this was probably in the 40s and 50s.
They were talking about this.
But now, if you add up all the times they threaten, intimidate, move toward impeachment, it's so common that I think that there's not much effectiveness to that.
There's so many other threats.
If they realize it, the whole system is going to come down a long time before we impeach a president.
I mean, that's part of the chaos, and that's a reflection of a system that no longer functions.
And this is something that will be dealt with.
But the impeachment, this whole thing to conspire to do this in advance, I would like to talk to Jonathan Turley and just figure how far can you go on that?
And what leeway does the president have?
Because some people did go over some of the alternatives.
He might not be able to get out of NATO or something, but he might just freeze on dealing with them and not perform with them.
Yeah, it's an issue.
And, you know, you spent your time in the House complaining about executive branch overreach, very correctly so, obviously, according to the Constitution.
But now we're talking about congressional overreach because the president has very broad authority historically to make foreign policy.
Now the House has, or the Congress has the power of the purse.
They could say you can't spend money on that, and that would effectively have a policy implication.
But you can't say you must spend money on that, at least for me.
I mean, Charlie would know way better than me, but it seems like that to me.
Yeah.
So maybe we'll get to that point, but maybe this bill that we're talking about won't get to the House.
Maybe things will settle down.
I actually think what's going to happen, this stuff is going to go back and forth, and the Democrats are in such a box.
As much as they can't stand Trump, they can't stand their president either.
They're not allowed to say it, but they can't do it because they have Harris to deal with.
So I think it's going to limp along and say, well, within a few months, they're going to say, well, let's just let the people decide.
So far, the democratic process, giving us the type of leaders we have and the mess we have, I would say this system itself has not done well.
There's usually an excuse just to do the wrong things.
Oh, 51%, we can do anything we want.
We can print out the money we want.
Maybe we'll have a Trump-Hillary rematch.
That would be easy.
Stock up on popcorn because I enjoyed it the first time.
I wanted to just show a little bit from the Vance memo because it's very, very clever and very important.
People should keep this in mind now.
If you can just kind of expand that bottom part a little bit.
I don't know if we can, because my eyes are not that great.
But so here it's subtitled The Supplemental Impeachment Time Bomb.
President Trump said in regard to the war in Ukraine, well, got to get that war settled.
I'll get it settled.
He stated that he would resolve the war in 24 hours.
And Vance continues, the bill includes $1.6 billion for foreign military financing in Ukraine and $13.7 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
These funds expire on September 30th, 2025, nearly a year into the possible second term of President Trump.
These are the exact same accounts President Trump was impeached for pausing in December 2019.
Every single House Republican voted against this impeachment resolution.
Now go to the next page and highlight that top part just to continue his thought.
So, Vance correctly, in my opinion, concludes: if President Trump were to withdraw from or pause financial support for the war in Ukraine in order to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion over the objections of career experts, quote unquote, it would amount to the same fake violation of a budget law from the first impeachment under markedly similar facts and circumstances.
Good find on Vance's part, I think.
Yes, that's for sure.
And, you know, the result of an impeachment, even talk of it or performing an impeachment, it has dumbfunded the politicians because they thought, boy, we'll do that.
Trump did.
They didn't learn a lesson.
I said, well, that was a fluke.
People didn't quite understand how bad he is.
We have to impeach him.
Let's do it again.
So it was a trap that they fell into.
You know, I kid.
I think that we, the Republicans, have a plant within and say, let's impeach them.
But I don't think that was in the cards.
And I just have this idea that the sentiment of the people will speak out, even though it won't be the result of pure democracy.
It means that the people do still have a voice.
And because I think when they have too much, when they have too much war, they'll end the war.
But they're too slow.
I want them not to start the darn wars, you know, instead of just waiting.
So we, same way with inflation.
How far does it have to get before we decide?
Oh, you mean you mean if you print more money, prices go up?
Oh, I don't know how that could happen.
Exactly.
And it's the same will happen with Ukraine.
And it happened with Iraq already.
We didn't see that coming.
You know, they're probably going to pass this $60 billion.
It's going to go down the rat holes.
Most of it's going to go to the military contractors in the U.S.
It will change nothing on the battlefield.
And they'll say, well, we did our best.
I always keep wondering about the question.
Do they know better?
Do they know this could happen?
Are they just stupid?
Or is there a sinister plan behind this?
And I think there are some on each side of that.
Yeah, there's a lot of campaign donations in that money.
Yeah.
I can believe that.
Well, the other thing, and this is kind of a theme in the second part of the show, and this is not a defense of Trump, but what this is, is, I think, a defense of the Constitution, because now they're terrified because Trump has said some things about NATO, similar to what he said before he was elected, which is that, hey, no one's paying up.
If you don't pay up, you don't get protected.
And part of it he said in half of a joke because it was during a rally.
Trump-Proofing NATO00:08:03
And of course, his opposition has zero sense of humor.
Trump is threatening to not, you know, what have you.
But the fact is they are afraid, and this is a politico headline, if you put that next one up.
Everyone should be scared as hell.
Democrats call for Trump-proofing NATO.
So essentially what this means is that Democrats, and I would suggest plenty of Republicans in the House and Senate, they want to make it so that they're upset that Trump might win, that the people may vote and elect Trump.
So they want to make it that he actually can't have his own foreign policy, can't get out of NATO, can't stop funding Ukraine, can't stop provoking China, whatever it is.
They don't want to allow him to have a foreign policy.
You know, they talk about him getting us so we don't have to go to war under their declaration.
But I think that here's another thing they can do.
They talked about what Trump could do to just put monkey wrenches in there and not respond and not go to the meetings and that sort of thing.
But there's also Article 5, it can be declared that they have to get together and stop this aggression.
But the way I remember reading about NATO and the United Nations is that the Congress ultimately has something to say to conform to that, as well as the money.
You mentioned the money already.
That's why the power of the money is a resistance.
So it might be nothing you could depend on.
That would be last resort.
But you could stop the money and you could have the Congress, you know, instead of conforming to it and saying, we support it.
We declare that we all have to declare that we're supporting this war.
I mean, but how, just think of it, it's always annoying me how quickly Truman was able to dispel with all that principle, because just a short time after World War II, we go to this undeclared war and thousands of people being killed, and there's still dissension over it.
Then we went on to Vietnam.
And then we went on to the Mideast Wars under Republican.
Can you believe it?
I mean, there are a few basic things here.
First of all, no treaty can supersede the Constitution.
I mean, that's just a fact.
The Constitution has specific requirements if we're going to war.
That's number one.
But number two, there's a huge misconception about Article 5.
All you have to do is read it.
It's not ambiguous at all.
It basically does not require any country to use force to come to the aid of any ally.
It simply says they should, each country that's a signatory to the NATO treaty should do what they think is appropriate.
That's it.
It doesn't even talk about the use of force.
But they never bring that up.
No.
They make the assumption.
Article 5, you better get moving.
And it just gives the military-industrial complex, good, roll out the tanks and we'll stay busy for a while longer.
Well, here's a couple of things about this trying to prevent Trump from having a foreign policy.
Put this next one up.
Now, here's Chris Van Holland, Democrat neocon from Maryland.
He didn't used to be this bad, by the way.
But he said, I love this, though, okay?
They're worried about Trump being elected, as in the American people vote.
in the Democratic election.
Here's what he said.
Everyone should be scared as hell.
Anybody who cares about American leadership, anyone who cares about protecting democracy, anybody who wants to take on authoritarians around the world should be scared to death by the fact that Trump is telling us that if he's re-elected, he would throw our NATO allies to Putin.
The thing is, who's the one who's undermining democracy?
If you elect the wrong guy, it's undermining democracy, is what Chris Van Holland is saying.
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction that they work with.
But it doesn't bother them.
That's beyond them.
If there is a contradiction, they have to cover their bases and explain it before anybody notices.
So it's a system.
That's why the best answers are so readily available to all of us if we had the principles of non-intervention across the board.
Non-intervention in foreign affairs.
Why are we doing this?
So all the advice given and all the practicalities of this and all the moral arguments against this.
And then if you want to talk about personal relationship, why should we be able to interview and tell other people how to live and what they do if they're not hurting anybody?
Except, oh, they may hurt themselves.
Oh, yeah, that's something you might have to tolerate.
Maybe that's what happens in a free society.
People make up their own mind.
But then again, when it comes to accepting this principle of interventionism, by golly, you have to have an equitable system, you know, on economics to make sure everybody is equally treated.
So then they go into that.
And all they get is it's all mischief and wrong and immoral, unconstitutional.
And yet the people say, when a problem becomes apparent, well, we better get together and solve this problem with more of the same.
Yeah, more of the same.
They never say repeal.
That's what was one of my dreams.
If the Wright administration got in, they'd have one rule to start at the beginning, and the people accept it.
We can only improve this country by repealing of law.
Yeah.
He can't add anything more.
See, that would be a good slogan if you ran for president.
You know, you had hope for America.
It should be Ron Paul 2024, repeal everything.
Repeal everything.
That's a great point.
And if you're worried about radical repealing, do one at a time.
One a day.
One a day.
Just one repeal a day.
Well, I just want to finish out a little bit on this politico article.
I know I'm taking too much time, but in absence of an argument against Trump actually being allowed to have a foreign policy, they want to terrify us.
And here are some things they want to scare us that he might do.
Put this next one up.
This is from the politico.
Trump, for example, could refuse to appoint a U.S. ambassador to NATO in Brussels or order U.S. military commanders to dial back exercises with their NATO counterparts.
He could even refuse to come to a country's aid if he's attacked.
These moves fall short of pulling Washington out of the alliance, but they would certainly show the administration was walking away from key commitments.
These are all very good suggestions.
I would say this is a good start.
I hope he starts with this and continues to pull the money out.
The last one, if you can put this up.
Now, this is, again, I mean, this is frustrating when you see Congress trying to tie the hands of a president's constitutional authority.
This is Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut.
He has pushed for legislation to guard against Trump deploying U.S. troops on American soil in a second term.
So here's what he said.
I'm petrified by the prospect that Donald Trump could reduce appropriations or otherwise, in effect, if not word, withdraw American support from NATO.
I think these comments are disastrous.
So he's terrified that Trump may pursue an independent foreign policy.
But Americans voting for him know Trump has said what he's going to do.
It's not a surprise.
Unlike most politicians, he said what he's going to do.
If he gets in and does it, he has a mandate for it.
But the immediate concern is where they're really panicking is that if Trump's in, he might lose the enthusiasm for sending anything.
He's already expressed himself to Ukraine.
And that is a big deal for them.
But he wants to, you know, they want to continue that funding.
But excuse me.
Why Haven't We Done Better?00:03:10
Yeah, they want the money.
They want the gravy train because they know that it doesn't go to Ukraine.
It goes to their campaign finance.
But that's exactly what was going on with Kennedy and Vietnam.
The theme of the assassination was that Kennedy had made his decision.
He was going to back off after the election.
He had to have one more election.
Then he was going to back off.
And that's when the military-industrial complex said, no way.
And that's the way they're getting so aggressive about Ukraine.
You'd think if, you know, a few weeks ago when it was obvious they've lost the war, why didn't they just fade away?
But they didn't do that.
They just buckled down and they're still doing it.
I can't believe how stubborn they are.
And the only thing that's going to stop them is when the American people wake up and say, no more.
They're starting to wake up.
And also when they exhaust the value of the dollar, which we're working hard on that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I think I've talked myself tired.
So I'm going to close.
I'm looking over here.
Again, we've got a great live audience, almost 1,200 people.
If each one of you clicked that like button, it would do us a huge favor.
Wouldn't cost you anything, would help us out, help us get higher up when Rumble talks about which live show to watch, and we'll get suggested more.
So appreciate you for watching the show, as always.
And hit that like and hit that follow.
Up to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
You know, you'd think our efforts and the policies we stand for would be an easy sell.
And I keep complaining about that to myself.
If it is so great, as I believe, why are we doing better in the conversion?
That something that is not pure democracy, but it still is important that the people know and what you want, that they want to live in a furry society and they work and they want the responsibility they want to take away from government.
So that to me is, why haven't we done a better job?
And some people are better at it than others, but that's just the way it is.
And I think conditions have to get so bad until people wake up.
But there seems to be cycles in this.
But it's always great to see people influenced by the philosophy that we're talking about.
And I think there's more people joining us than ever before.
Not just us, not the two of us, but the people who have promoted peace and prosperity.
We just happened to call this Institute, Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
So nobody should be against that.
But there are.
There are people who can't stand it.
They're scared to death that some of their artificial stolen prosperity will be hindered.
So that's why they go to the military-industrial complex to do their job rather than joining us in this effort to promote the cause of liberty and promote the cause of peace and prosperity.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.