All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
24:01
Pentagon Claims It's 'Out Of Money,' Can't Replace Weapons Sent To Ukraine!

The Pentagon is doing a Zelensky - begging for money because it has shipped all its weapons to Ukraine. Whose idea was it to send weapons we need to Ukraine? Also today, Poland's neocon foreign minister confirms there are NATO troops already in Ukraine.

|

Time Text
Ukraine's Military Crisis 00:14:21
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 fine.
All right.
Doing well.
Excellent.
And ready and rare to go.
But they're after our money.
Yep.
But you know, the money we're going to talk about today, we've talked about before.
It's ongoing, but it's an ongoing problem, so that's why we have to keep talking about it.
And maybe somebody will wake up before the calamity occurs.
But the Pentagon wants more money.
They've had a lot.
They had a lot of weapons stored up.
They were prepared for three wars, but actually had enough for six wars.
Wow.
And they've used up all their weapons.
They needed to use more weapons probably in Ukraine than they did in World War II, for all we know.
But anyway, we've sent a lot of weapons over there, and it doesn't look like Ukraine's going to pull it off.
Looks like Russia's still, you know, in the stronghold there.
But the Pentagon says it needs just $10 billion this time, because we've already sent $120 or something like that.
They need $10 billion, but this is for a patriotic reason.
This isn't for sending weapons overseas, and this isn't for starting a foreign war.
This is to replace weapons to protect us.
We went to, why don't we have weapons?
Well, we gave them away, protecting ourselves.
But anyway, that's what happened.
You know, a couple years ago, we thought that it would be easy, and it's a good war to have for the military-industrial complex.
So we gave them a lot of money and a lot of weapons, and they're still out of weapons.
And guess what?
Unfortunately, even though they've been arguing about it in the Congress, my prediction is eventually they're going to get it.
This way, right now the argument has shifted a little bit.
It used to be whether it would be Ukraine or our borders.
But right now, it's national security.
We don't have weapons to defend ourselves.
And the Russians are getting more aggressive.
And who knows what the Chinese are going to do next week?
So we need a lot of weapons.
And it just happens that weapons are secondary to diplomacy.
And we have zero decent international diplomacy with our interventionist foreign policy.
Pentagon says it needs $10 billion to replace weapons.
It sent to Ukraine.
And most likely they'll end up getting it in the front door, the back door, or by the Federal Reserve providing it.
But the war is not going to stop because we didn't give enough assistance to the military-industrial complex, or we ran out of rifles.
It's going to happen.
But the tragedy is, if it doesn't come automatically, and I remember the Mid-Eastern wars, the American people weren't for that.
It took them about a year to really convince the people that we were under attack.
And then the people went along with it until they finally had, well, it's time to leave.
Let's leave Afghanistan.
How long have we been there?
15, 20 years.
It was a total disaster.
It's too little, too late, and we don't need to do it that way because fortunately, there's an easy answer to that.
A wonderful answer.
All we have to do is listen to the Constitution, fight only wars that are declared, and make sure you can't inflate and satisfy the military-industrial complex and make sure that we don't claim to be the policemen of the world.
And sometimes people resent that.
And then they get mad at us for being in their country.
So they attack some of our stuff, you know, and some of our military personnel.
And we have them over there.
And this is just an indication of the perpetuation, but they don't give up.
And even when the bank is empty, they don't give up because we still have our credit card.
As long as that credit card is going to work, this is going to continue.
Yeah.
Well, put this first one up.
Now, this is, as you say, Dr. Paul.
We saw it via anti-war, but this is the original article from Politico.
As you say, the Pentagon needs Congress to hand over $10 billion to replace weapons sent to Ukraine.
Now, this should have a huge question mark when people read this, I think, Dr. Paul, because put on the next, and here's a little bit into the article.
Now, I highlighted this part.
The Pentagon has sent $10 billion worth of weapons to Ukraine that it still does not have the money to replace due to congressional gridlock, according to a DOT official.
Now, I just wonder about that due to a congressional gridlock, because at some point, I mean, did they just anticipate the money would be automatic?
You know, you think that they might be asking the question, if we give $10 billion worth of weapons that we need to Ukraine and we don't have the money already in the bank to pay for the new ones, maybe that's not such a good idea.
But, you know, technically the money has been appropriated and it's sitting there, but haven't had the final, oh, well, they're dying to the wire, and they're being business people, and we have to prepare.
We can't give our last weapon away.
We have to get, the Congress has to give, guarantee that they're going to give us the money to replace it.
So they use it as a political weapon and pressure.
They don't care about these numbers.
And so the money is there because they print the money if they don't have it.
And they're not going to give up on it, which is a sad situation.
And right now, though, I think the cards are in place for more Americans waking up because it's so stupid, so ridiculous, and the problems are going to be so bad, but they have to connect to problems.
It's when they wake up someday and say, why does bread cost me $20?
Oh, it has something to do with Ukraine.
Oh, I don't believe that.
Well, they have to become believers on what we're doing elsewhere and what we're doing in a military-industrial complex and printing all this money.
And that's why their bread prices are going to go up a lot more.
You have to ask a question, what is the purpose of the U.S. military?
And the answer should be to defend the United States.
Well, if that is the situation, and put up the next clip if you can, if that is what it's made for and that's what we sort of agree that we spend money for, then how is it that the military would give away the ability to defend the United States?
This is from the same article.
The DOD does not get the funding to backfill its stocks.
The impact of that ongoing hole will ultimately be felt by the U.S. military's own forces, said the DOD official.
So it would come back to our own readiness on our own stockpile to a certain extent if we can't get new funding.
This is almost an admission of a crime.
They're admissing that they depleted the military.
The military has been hollowed out.
It can no longer protect the United States because they gave everything to a foreign country to Ukraine.
Well, we must be getting closer to the end point.
Dave DeCamp, in his article, he says, you know, even if they gave them the weapons, they don't have any troops left.
And that is a real human tragedy.
Not only have a lot of people lost their lives over there, innocent people and the military people, but also thinking about all the children who have died over there.
And that goes on and on.
But even if they got exactly what they want in weaponry, he says they don't have the troops to use them.
Which is a bit of irony.
But that also means that could it be that some foreign troops might be filtering in there and getting prepared?
That would be a terrible, terrible escalation.
And we might talk about that a little bit about why that might happen.
Yeah.
Maybe the guys that are pouring over the border, they might want to go fight a little more.
I wanted to do one last clip on this because this is the grift, in my opinion.
If you put this next one on, this is what it's all about.
The deficit stems, this deficit in money to pay for the weapons we gave away.
The deficit stems from the difference in the value of equipment sent to Ukraine compared to the cost to replace it.
For example, if the army sends older munitions that are no longer being produced, it might replace them with a newer version that is more expensive.
This is the grift for the military-industrial complex.
We send the stuff that's worn out, and then we spend double to replace it with shiny, fancy, brand new stuff.
This is what keeps everyone in business.
This is what keeps Washington working.
But they'll say technology is improving.
These are better weapons than ever.
But really, what it improves is probably the bottom line for the people who make these weapons.
So that's always a gimmick to get the people stirred up.
But the people are getting stirred up.
But boy, I just hope that they get the information they need to realize why this happens.
And how long are we going to do this?
You know, there were terrible things happening in the 20th century, but they were handled a little bit differently.
There were different perceptions, even though I believe the world wars, our involvement in that, could have been prevented.
But it wasn't.
But there was still an attitude.
Well, they attacked us first, and we're going to attack them.
We're going to fight them.
And they had a precise goal and time and a declaration.
And people, there wasn't this great debate.
But now, this is different.
Since World War II, it's automatic, you know, that there's no need for declaration.
I remember, and I've told this story before.
It was the first week or so I was in Congress after I won a special election in 1976.
And I had a little debate on a radio, and I was pretty innocent, but he was a chairman of a military committee.
And I was, you know, probably saying pretty much what I'm saying here.
And he said, and the person I was sort of debating, he says, let me tell you, Ron, he says, there's never going to be another declaration of war.
And I tested that into Congress, tried it, and they say, go fly a kite.
We don't declare wars anymore.
It confuses people.
You're supposed to win wars that you declare.
Yeah, that's probably it.
Well, you talked about troops.
Troops are a big problem.
Ukraine is, unfortunately, there's no men left.
They're actually putting women in there now.
They've got guys probably our age in there fighting now.
That's sad, terrible.
Not even funny.
So here is from Dave DeCamp at anti-war.com.
The next story is Poland's foreign minister confirms NATO troops are in Ukraine.
It's a war is kept secret because we've been talking about it.
You know, we learned about it from that, what, about a year or so ago, that release of classified information.
But here's the article.
Radek Sikorsky, he is a big-time neocon.
He's married to Anne Applebaum, who hates Russia more than anything on earth.
But big-time neocon, he's now back again the foreign minister under the neoliberal neocon government of Tusk in Poland.
He says NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine.
And I would like to thank the ambassadors of those countries who have taken that risk.
So it's very clear that he's a provocateur, that he is pushing for a wider NATO expansion.
He wants NATO to declare war on Russia.
And here's some more proof that he's a provocateur.
If you put this next one up, remember back when Nordstream was blown up, Dr. Paul, who is the first person to comment on it?
Well, it was Radek Sikorsky.
Remember that little tweet he put out?
Thank you, USA, with the picture of Nordstream having blown up.
So this is the guy we're dealing with saying, we already got troops there.
They ask the foreign minister, well, just name the countries that are in there.
Oh, he didn't want to do that, but he didn't want to stir up any trouble.
They know who's going over there.
Keep some secrets for a long, long time, and when it's necessary, we'll lie and say anything we need to say.
We need to scare the people.
And if the people don't wake up, just tell them, well, they're just not patriotic, and that's the reason, and they're selling out their country.
And they keep using the same old argument, you know, the scare tactics.
Too many people fall for it, but too many people, you know, in a way, it's a mixed bag.
We have still a lot of prosperity in this country, although I think that most of it's based on debt.
And every year there's prosperity, and some places it increases, and the people who are falling through the tracks are getting what they need.
But they do this, but it will stop, but they don't realize that.
So they keep doing it.
And we have this license to steal, a license to pressure, and we have the empire.
So it's a major thing that we have to do.
And I say, well, that's revolutionary.
We've never talked about that.
Well, you know, I think there was a revolution fought over this issue of what our government should be like.
And our government is not to be decided.
It's not to be the government of the world.
And they say, well, you're the revolutionaries or the anarchists, and you want to, you know, also, in the same breath, I say, you're nothing more than an isolationist.
So we're doing too much and too little.
But the government does have a responsibility, and that is to do the maximum thing to provide the conditions of freedom for individuals to run their own life.
And, you know, the question really arises, why do they seem so desperate?
Why are they desperate to ramp up this war?
You know, Macron, the French president, said a few days ago, well, we may get to the point where we need to send NATO troops in there.
And he was smacked down.
Then the UK government, Rishi Sunak, said, yeah, we might have to send troops there.
Why are they getting so nervous and so desperate?
First of all, we have been heard for two years that Ukraine's winning.
It's just a matter of time.
Well, that must not be the case, so they wouldn't panic.
I would put out here, Dr. Paul, this is the reason.
President's Power to Ban Websites 00:08:17
Put on that next clip.
This is the reason why they're panicking.
This is from The Guardian.
Now, Victor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who I've known, by the way, and worked for, Trump will not give a penny to Ukraine if he wins, Hungary's Victor Orban says.
He went over to Mar-a-Lago.
He had a little visit with Donald Trump.
I think they're big fans of each other.
And this is what he said that Trump told him.
And you can just leave that up there.
I'll read from the article.
Calling Trump a man of peace, Orban said, quote, if the Americans don't give money and weapons along with the Europeans, the war is over.
And if the Americans don't give money, the Europeans alone can't finance the war, and then the war is over.
So this is, I think, what they're panicking about.
They're worried that Trump will get in and will stop the money train going to them.
They want to keep it a secret that the solution is an easy solution and not difficult.
And that couldn't be that easy.
War is much easier to promote when they can promote all the propaganda, tragically.
Well, let's do a couple of short things.
First, a little update on our discussion yesterday about the TikTok ban.
And our good friend Thomas Massey, he always is so insightful.
He always cuts right to the chase.
Here's a tweet he put out this morning.
The so-called TikTok ban is a Trojan horse.
The president will be given the power to ban websites, not just apps.
The person breaking the new law is deemed to be in the U.S. or offshore internet hosting service or app store, not the foreign adversary.
So it's aimed toward Americans.
Now, he put a couple of clips.
If you could put the next one on, here's from his tweet.
Here's a clip from the proposed law.
Foreign adversary controlled application.
The term foreign adversary controlled application means a website.
He has that highlighted.
Desktop app, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So website is what talked about.
Go to the next one, please, from the bill, the TikTok ban.
This prohibition of foreign adversary controlled applications, providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such application, i.e. websites, and providing internet hosting services to said website.
And just go to the next one.
Here's his final word on this.
If you think this isn't a Trojan horse and will only apply to TikTok and foreign adversary social media companies, then contemplate why someone thought it was important to get a very specific exclusion for their internet-based businesses written into the bill.
And he puts a clip from the bill that talks about what places are excluded from this.
And this has to do with, it allows users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.
They are exempt from it.
So sorry to be long-winded, Dr. Paul, but he cut to the chase here.
This is about giving the president the power to ban websites he doesn't like.
Yes, and that's a can of worms because yes, we want to cancel that one particular thing because that's anti-Chinese and that fits into that scenario.
But are we offering up, oh yes, by the way, we do it too, and we're going to get away with it.
We're just going to laugh at you because we're more powerful and we have more weapons currently and we have more determination.
So no, they don't do it that way.
The whole thing is when you're dealing in evil, you want superior evil to the other side.
You don't give things up.
You don't try to promote the principles of liberty by setting a good example, which we as a nation did in our early years.
You know, other people said, United States, I think they have something special going on.
But that isn't the case now.
It's a battle for wealth and control and money.
And it's such a shame this is happening because it's not complex.
It's not easy to change.
We have more peace and we'd have more prosperity.
Oh, you're a traitor.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
So very bad news, I think, this whole thing is.
And what's to stop if the president has the power to ban a website that he deems to be a foreign adversary?
Well, maybe RT will go first.
No one's going to complain.
Oh, it's Russian.
But maybe other websites who are fully American.
Maybe our show.
We talk too much about foreign stuff.
You know, we've got to ban it.
So be careful what you wish for, I think.
Well, I guess we want to finish up with a tweet from somebody we do know and respect a good deal, and that is Senator Rand Paul.
He was furious yesterday because Donald Trump endorsed Mike Rogers to return to Congress.
Rand Paul tweets, Donald Trump just endorsed the worst deep state candidate this cycle.
Mike Rogers is a never-Trumper and a card-carrying member of the spy state that seeks to destroy Trump.
You have to ask yourself, who gives Trump this awful advice?
Who's next?
John Bolton.
And he actually, he links to an audio click of Mike Rogers discussing Trump.
And let's get our machines ready to listen to this if we can cue that up and listen to this is the person that Trump just endorsed in the race in Michigan.
I don't believe today as I'm sitting here that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2024.
Don't believe it.
I don't think it's helpful for the President of the United States to attack the media.
It's petty, and it's certainly below the stature of the office of the President of the United States.
It's beneath the office in and of itself.
Actions and activities unbecoming of the office of the President of the United States.
So this guy hates Trump.
He's on record hating Trump, and yet Trump says, I'm for this guy.
It's crazy.
So we talk a lot about these things that make no sense, and we wonder about it.
We try to figure out what's going on.
But that's a tough one to figure out because it makes zero sense.
It's actually a negative when you're looking for common sense on it.
It makes no sense for the bad people unless they, well, unless they, but I just can't believe these people that are involved, what we're really doing, you know, it makes sense if you're trying to destroy America.
You know, that won't sell.
But that is a real tragedy.
And, you know, I don't think he'll call Rand.
He didn't call Rand first.
Yeah, yeah.
But the one thing is, I really respect my son because he's been able to develop a position where he can be independent-minded and say things that other people under Trump, Trump might, you know, really be angry and come flying at him.
But I don't think he could do that to him.
Mr. Rand.
Yeah, I mean, there was a mutual respect in the first term.
But I would say, I mean, at least to us, maybe wrong, it looks like it's a pretty close race at this point.
So I would think if I was Trump or Trump's people, I would not want to irritate someone like Rand because Rand has a lot of libertarian-minded conservatives around him.
As you say, his stature in the Senate is huge now.
He's done so many things.
He's got a big following.
I mean, why would you want to irritate that huge faction of potential voters?
I don't understand.
He better call him up and apologize and ask for some advice, I think.
Oh, boy.
I know.
Maybe he'll call us up and ask for advice.
So anyway, I'm going to close out.
I'm going to thank everyone for watching the show today.
We appreciate you watching.
Please hit like.
Please hit subscribe no matter where you're watching the show.
And we look forward to seeing you next time.
Over to you, Dr. Very good.
And once again, I want to join in in thanking our viewers for tuning in.
We're getting more viewers, and I hope you continue to send them to us because we need to get the information out.
And we have some other plans on trying to expand our audience.
Because ultimately, as the ideas and ideas have to be spread, they don't have to have gigantic audiences, but the larger they are, then when they're dedicated, that's the key to it.
A large audience that's dedicated to undoing what you're doing, that's not so good.
Expanding Our Audience 00:01:07
But I think that the message is so powerful, and that's why we work so hard at this.
And the one part I like, and the one thing that so many people received well when I was doing my campaigning was it's not complicated.
You know, and it makes sense.
It's constitutional.
It's based on a moral principle.
It's based on the practical principle that if you care about peace and prosperity, you accept this principle of non-intervention in our personal lives, non-intervention in voluntary, honest economy, and no voluntary and only voluntarism in dealing with foreign nations instead of doing all the demagoguing and threat and bombs and sanctions.
So it isn't that difficult.
It's easy to understand.
The results would be magnificent.
We need that message out because that's the only thing we have.
don't have enough guns and to say we have more guns than you have and you will become free loving people.
See, it doesn't even work.
And that is a problem.
But I do want to thank you very much for the support you have given us over the years.
Export Selection