Democrat Revolt! Pelosi Demands Pause In Weapons To Israel!
After last week's Israel attack on western aid workers, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signed a Democrat Party letter to President Biden demanding a pause in arms shipments to Israel until an investigation can be completed on the attack. Democrats are increasingly feeling the pressure of their party's overwhelming opposition to Biden's Israel policy. Also today: more cracks in NATO's rotten core. Finally: Trump does the right thing on abortion.
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?
Doing fine.
Thank you.
Ready and raring to go.
So, spring is here.
Yeah, yeah.
A lot of mosquitoes?
How come you're not out waiting on the sun to go dark on us?
I'm terrified of the mosquitoes.
They're about the size of birds.
We don't have any.
You must have a good spray because we live way down the street from you.
Anyway, you got to feed the birds.
The birds like the mosquitoes.
Yeah, that's true.
Nature takes care of it sometimes.
Anyway, nature doesn't take care of the wars that we're fighting, though.
And if we want to talk about the perpetual wars that we keep talking about, this time, you know, it's a good indication, but it's not the solution to all wars.
And this comes from anti-war.
I have an article out.
Nancy Pelosi signs a letter urging Biden to halt weapons transfer to Israel.
And, you know, my first reaction, what?
I thought she was pro-Israel.
She's going to be called anti-Semitic here pretty soon.
So that is amazing, but that's a reflection of the attitude of politicians, flip-flopping anytime they think it's necessary.
And I guess this is a reflection that maybe if it's possible that Biden might be in a little bit of trouble and they have to sort of modify that for the progressives.
So in a way, somebody like Pelosi is in a difficult position because she certainly wanted to be identified as a progressive liberal Democrat.
But then she also had to defend Israel.
But this is a thing.
She signs this letter that says that we shouldn't be signing.
It makes a lot of sense.
But why be selling weapons?
And I think we even mentioned that in one of our reports.
What's the consistency there that you complain of all the killing and then we give them weapons the same day?
So this to me is a reflection of people's attitudes that are changing as things go along.
We'd like to think that most people could practically predict a position if you trust somebody when they say, we're non-interventionists, we don't get involved.
We don't get involved in internationalism and all that activity there.
And you know, non-intervention gives you this position.
But as all wars go, people get tired of them.
I think that the last wars that didn't linger like that really was the last war was World War II.
And that was mainly because, well, I think it's related to, I'd like to think there's a difference when you get a declaration of war and you know when it's going to start and when it's going to end and what the exact goals are, even if the goals might have been a little bit muddied.
So anyway, but now the wars linger.
Korea, we still have to, you know, being Korean, nobody touches them.
And then Vietnam was a disaster, which I've talked about so often, you know.
But it was the people here demonstrating.
And now we've had demonstrations here.
The progressive Palestinians that live here now, they have been responding.
And it's significant enough for the politicians to say, watch out.
But they might like to think, well, that's the only reason that Biden is in trouble.
But I would think that some people might think there's more to it than just that.
But anyway, I think this is a reflection that people attitudes are changing.
We saw a change in attitude about the war against the American people during COVID, pseudo-artificial artificial lockdown.
And that, of course, was very good.
The people's minds changed, and they finally stopped most of the nonsense.
But here, this is good because it's going one teeny step in the right direction.
And you can't say, well, they've had an enlightenment.
No, they didn't.
They had a political issue spur them on, and they're terrified about losing power come November.
Yeah, I mean, this is not an increase in humanitarianism on Nancy Pelosi's part.
What it really is is a panic and a fear over the political shift among the voters.
And I don't have it as a clip, but I remember, and I have it in front of me now, a piece in the Hill last week.
Democrats fear Israel-Hamas war could cost them in November.
They're concerned about that.
And so I put up this first clip because this is something that you wouldn't have seen a while ago.
There was what I'm sure the rest of the House would like to call a fringe group that from the beginning was very critical of the killing that was going on in Gaza.
But now it's been joined by a heavyweight former Speaker of the House, and that is very significant.
I can imagine there was a lot of debate in her office.
You know, she comes from, well, the rich part of San Francisco, but it's a progressive city, and she has to deal with that.
But so this is some anti-war, as you say, Dr. Paul Pelosi signs a letter urging Biden to halt weapons transfers to Israel.
Now, it's not really the 35,000 civilians that have been killed that bother her.
It's the seven aid workers from the West being killed last week that have made it a political inconvenience for her.
But as Dave DeCamp writes clearly and correctly in the article today, he says, Pelosi's signature is notable because she's been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout her long career in Congress.
In 2018, Pelosi vowed that, quote, if this capital crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid, and I don't even call it aid, to our cooperation with Israel, end quote.
Her signature could be part of a Democratic push against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, recently called for elections in Israel.
I remember in the early years, we had a congressman no longer with us.
He was conservative, a decent person, but he was a hawk.
His solution was make them a state.
Make them a state.
But they might not want to be.
They probably have a better deal right now.
They're probably exempt from some of the states that the states are involved with.
Yeah.
So, you know, the big thing is, you know, if you move in this direction that we would like to see, you don't vote for or you don't endorse something that they do.
Now, Pelosi is going to be protected.
But others might say, you didn't vote for that, so that makes you anti-Semitic.
You know, even if it's just one time, they can't, what they can't understand is taking a position that you apply to everybody the same.
It's an equal treatment, but they're just waiting to jump on somebody who said, well, you didn't vote for aid for Israel.
But what if the individual says, I didn't vote for aid for anybody, you know?
Well, that's what Thomas Massey says.
He said, look, I don't vote for foreign aid for anyone.
And that makes it easier for him because he doesn't have to tie himself, like same with you, tie himself up into a pretzel and say, well, in this case, and this, that, and the other.
He just said, I don't vote for any of them.
I keep thinking maybe there'll be a few people up there that whisper to them.
So, you know, he's right.
I bet there are.
Because, you know, as you know, they like nothing better than an easy time.
They don't want to be questioned about these things.
So anyway, let's put up the next quote.
This is from the letter that they sent to President Biden.
And this is about the attack and the, well, they hit him three times in a very precise way.
And then they claim they had no idea they were aid workers, even though they were on a route that had specifically been cleared with the IDF.
So it looks very, very bad for Israel.
But the letter reads, in light of this incident, which is the killing of the central kitchen workers last week, we strongly urge you to reconsider your recent decision to authorize the transfer of a new arms package to Israel and to withhold this and any future offensive offense.
That's a key word, I think, arms transfers until a full investigation into the airstrike is completed.
If the strike is found to have violated U.S. or international law, we urge you to continue withholding these transfers until those responsible are held accountable.
It's relatively minor, I think, in a way.
And that word of future offensive arms is a tricky little word because you can say, well, this is a defensive gun.
It's not an offensive gun.
Well, you think of how many people have already died, how many kids have died.
What do we have?
A seven here, which is horrible.
Yeah, yeah.
But the whole thing is, it got the public attention.
They have to respond.
And one thing that when this happens, it gets to the point where enough people say something, and now they're talking about this mistreatment with the AIDS.
But if you wanted to look at all the tragic deaths that have occurred here in the last couple years and to analyze that, they don't do that.
So I think eventually there's what some people refer to as a higher law.
It comes blatantly through.
It's much easier.
War hasn't yet reached that point, being opposed to war.
But, you know, you should at least the aid people, you know, get through there and take care of these tragedies.
At the same time, it's total hypocrisy because they don't change their attitude.
The next day they go back to doing the same old killing.
Absolutely.
So anyway, we'll see what happens.
I think it is a liability for them at the polling place, increasingly a liability.
And I would just like to revisit a chart that we put up last week, if you can do that next one, because this makes it very clear.
This is a new poll, recent poll from the Gallup organization.
Our regular viewers will have seen this already.
But do you approve or disapprove of the military action Israel has taken in Gaza?
And if you go down to the bottom, back in November, only 36% of Democrats approved what Israel is doing.
But now, at the end of March, that has gone down to 18.
It has dropped in half the number, the percentage of Democrat voters who approve of what Israel is doing.
And everyone knows every one of those bombs were given by us, including the bombs that killed those Americans and Brits and a poll in Israel last week.
So only 18%.
So they are responding in a desperate way to try to look like they're doing something because they know this will hurt them.
And ironically, I think, and I was thinking about this before the show, Dr. Paul, is that Donald Trump has always sold himself as the greatest friend of Israel, the strongest friend of Israel.
And he's made a point.
He moved the embassy.
He said, hey, take the Golden Hunts, whatever, no problem.
But in a weird way, because of that, and we know that Biden has had a tenuous relationship with Netanyahu over the years, because Trump's strong, I'm in favor of, he can almost get away with saying what he said last week, which is this was a dumb move.
It wasn't because he had any humanitarian feelings.
He's like, this looks bad.
What are you doing this for?
Well, sometimes wisdom comes in different forms.
Yeah, that's one way to put it.
Why do we do that?
And sometimes it's really funny when they say, who wrote that document?
I think the president had that example this week.
I never said that.
Who started that?
His name was on it.
Yeah, there's a hint.
Well, here's the next story that was interesting.
We saw it on Zero Hedge over the weekend.
NATO's Solidarity Gap00:05:16
And I like this story because it shows the disparity between perceptions and reality in NATO.
And one of the things that we've talked about on the show many times is the idea that the European NATO members love to scream about the Russian threat and that how we need to protect them from the Russian threat.
Well, at the same time, they spend a tiny percentage of their GDP on military spending, right?
So the difference between what they say and what they believe is quite wide.
And I think this is another example of that huge gap between what they say and what they really think.
And put that next one up.
A lack of solidarity within NATO.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is making several countries in Europe reassess their military defenses.
Several members of NATO have said they'll be increasing their numbers of conscripted soldiers, the latest of which were Denmark and Norway.
But what are the sentiments of people living in NATO states on the topic?
And go to this chart because we love charts because they really graphically demonstrate the blue, as you see in these charts, is those who believe that they should be defended by NATO.
The countries who believe that NATO should and will come to their defense.
Now the orange is their believing that they should defend the other members.
And that is, in some countries, a huge gap.
In the U.S., for example, 70% said, well, they've got to come to our defense, where only 60% say, we've got to come to everyone else's defense.
You know, when I was thinking about this, I thought, I wonder how many people there really have been in the past that believe these countries are going to really come and help us out if we really needed them.
We're there for a very specific reason.
We're developing a market.
You know, the market is very important because we deal with it.
We're a participant.
We have something to say.
We'll get control of NATO.
And this encourages them because I don't believe, oh yeah, we go to help a lot of people, but it's always the market, you know, what they have.
And even if something, even if it were a legitimate battle going on and you decide, well, this is just too bad.
We're going to join them and we're going to announce.
But they don't fight to win.
They fight to fight.
And we know where all the money goes and how much goes.
And yet right now, the irony of it all is this has been so ingrained, they don't hesitate for a minute if they think that, oh, we need $10 billion more for next year if it helps all these countries.
And not enough people say, well, where are you going to get the money?
Where's the money coming from?
Well, they don't want to know.
They really know, and they think they can fool people forever that we have a secret.
It's called a printing press.
And the other big secret is very few people have learned that the poor and the middle class will bear the burden because they're the ones.
You don't see people who are making $200,000 or $300,000 a year or a lot more complaining about the price of bread.
And so the people who have to pay are the middle class and less because the price is going up and that is a tax.
And it goes up because nobody asks, where's the money coming from?
Well, we don't have it, so we'll print it.
Can you get away with that?
For a while, sometimes a long time if you have military backing up your currency.
And that essentially is true.
There is a backing of a currency with the military because nobody wants to mess around.
Then you get control of the financial market.
And we have these tools of discipline our friends because if you want us to come and rescue you, you better do what we tell you.
Well, you know, the political leaders, especially in Europe, with a couple of exceptions, let's say, they all want to say it's all for one and one for all.
Article 5, we're going to all defend each other.
But if you put that chart back up, it's clear they don't really think that way.
Certainly the people in those countries don't think that way.
Let's look just at Bulgaria, for example.
68% of respondents in Bulgaria believe that they should be protected if something happens to Bulgaria.
But only 42% believe that Bulgaria should round up its men and probably women, who knows, and send them off to fight and die for Ukraine, for example.
It's a huge gap between 42 and 68.
And it's elsewhere.
Iceland, 78% said, well, you better come defend us if we run into some problems.
But only 47%, less than half of the people in Iceland survey, believe that Iceland has any obligation to defend the other NATO members.
That is just an incredible when you think about that.
Why couldn't we ask to make up for all this imbalance?
Ask a few people from Iceland to go protect our southern borders.
Yeah, there you go.
They identify with all that.
Moral Limits of Legislation00:12:56
So I just think that's another nail in the coffin of NATO because the perception versus reality is such a maybe we'll get to attend a funeral.
Yeah, that would be good.
We'll save some money.
Well, the next one is a fascinating one.
And the reason we bring it up is because Trump did the right thing.
We like to say when he did the right thing, but he's also taking a lot of heat.
I'm just going to announce a headline and throw it over to you, Dr. Paul, if you put that first clip up.
Trump says abortion should be decided.
Go to the next one, please.
I skipped that one, sorry.
Trump says abortion should be decided by the states.
The will of the people.
He's getting a lot of heat, Dr. Paul.
What do you think?
Well, I'm not surprised.
But I'm surprised that in some way he's done a pretty good job of changing his mind, which people should have an ability to do that.
But he has stuck to it.
And there are these, and he points out the tough ones, you know, incest and rape and that sort of thing.
And mother's help.
I think one of the weakest arguments is mother's health.
Not that somebody might be able to prove it.
I never saw it.
And I took care of a lot of people and delivered a lot of babies, but mothers stayed healthy.
And that is hardly a reason to justify all this abortion, you know, those few things.
So there's a lot of justification that goes on.
But, you know, I think, you know, the way it goes, abortion is always a moral issue.
No matter how many laws you have and what you do, there is a moral issue.
Even hardcore libertarians struggle with it too because they give up on the subject of aggression.
Well, is abortion aggression?
Then you have to deal with: is it a poor person and do they qualify, or are they a legal entity?
And then it gets difficult.
So it is not easy.
I've seen examples that really are difficult.
And I keep thinking about how do you solve this problem if you think it's a moral issue.
And one example that I've used is that if the law says you can have abortions all the way up until the time of delivery, that usually stops some people.
They say, well, we'll change it around if it's six months or eight months or three months and all of this.
But, you know, I've had patients and I've seen them and most OB doctors know about it.
I imagine the others who have not had experience might not believe this.
But some, especially young women, young girls, can be pregnant and they are in total denial and they'll come in and the parents bring them in.
The girl swears she doesn't know what's going on and the parents don't either.
They're able.
That's how strong it is.
Okay, so if that person does that, you know, all of a sudden, you know, what is she to do?
Well, if it only had been discovered a little bit sooner, even if you compare two six-month ones, so if maybe if they found out a six-month, okay, you're having an abortion, and they do the abortion, then it's all this pros and cons and who's guilty and who's going to get punished for what.
But if this girl comes in, she's six months pregnant, and the baby weighs, you know, three, four pounds, and very good and very healthy and has probably a 99% chance of living.
And the girl, instead of coming over and looking for a doctor for help, she goes down the street, deliver the baby, and then kills the baby.
And then there has been times when I do that, and the law enforcement people are crazy.
She killed a child.
And they arrest her.
Now, if you want confusion for young people, so they go in, abortions are more difficult at six months.
The doctor makes a bunch of money for this.
It's complicated.
He gets paid for it.
And then if it just happens where the woman has a spontaneous carry miscarriage or something like that, all of a sudden, but if there's, at one time, you know, they say it's horrible, but at another time, people will say, well, she committed murder.
And I think I've used that sometimes with libertarians to try to sort out.
And there are imperfect answers.
There are problems.
And in my little booklet that I've done on abortion, I do point out if you deal with pregnancy, if you do it from the time of conception, then maybe three or four weeks.
If you say no abortion ever, we have to invest, how would they ever do it?
You know, sometimes it's just impossible.
So not only is it, I believe, the way it is now, it's always a moral issue.
There could be a time in this very, very early pregnancy, if you were going to stop all abortions, you know, it doesn't make any sense.
So we're back to this point that morality has a lot to do with what we do and how we live.
And I think the way our founders looked at this, on difficult situations, the more difficult problems are where there's crime and punishment's necessary, the closer to home, the better.
And that is the reason why I think Trump is right on this.
He's staked out a position.
I would think that's the best he can do under these circumstances.
And people say that, well, you know, he's going to allow some abortion, so therefore he's not pro-life.
So both sides have a job at it, but I do.
I maintain that no matter who you are or where you are or what you represent or whether you're a legislator or a doctor or a patient or a family, it always boils down to a tough moral decision, and it's harder for some than others.
And sometimes people use that as a reason.
Don't touch my body.
That sort of thing.
And aren't ready for a rational discussion.
Yeah.
Well, let's look at what Trump actually said, you know, because he's getting a lot of heat for it.
But put up that next clip.
Here's what Trump posted on his social media.
My view is the states will determine by legislation or vote or perhaps both and whatever they decide must be the law of the land.
In this case, the law of the state.
Many states will be different.
Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others.
And that's what they will be.
At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people, Trump said.
You must follow your heart, or in many cases, your religion or your faith.
Do what's right for your family and do what's right for yourself.
Do what's right for our country.
And this looks like a radical position unless you consider what you've always said, which is there are a lot of other crimes that are only state crimes, most of them.
Oh, yeah, everything almost.
I mean, just think of how many different types of killing it can go when you get into manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary accidents happening, all these things.
And the states haven't gone through.
We have to universalize.
We know these circumstances.
Sometimes there's different penalties.
Of course, I think it should be states that deal with acts of violence.
And when necessary, you use a jury.
It too will be imperfect, but I think that is what we were given with the Constitution.
And I think the statement is reasonable, what he made.
Yeah, and this is one way the right is like the left.
They want to federalize everything, you know.
But that doesn't work very well in your favor when you've got a place like California, when you've got New York.
If you have conservative Texas and Texas has a rule that's way more conservative, why would you want to bend to the will of some crazies out on the West Coast?
You know, one thing that I quietly ponder, and there's no reason to talk a whole lot about it, is what about the very dedicated pro-abortionists?
I mean, there are some really, really, they spend a lifetime on it.
And I got to thinking, you know, some people, if they listen to what I just said, you know, that's a little bit too fuzzy for me.
No abortion, something like that.
But there are some people who will say that it can't be done.
And we'll make one law.
And it just, it doesn't work that way.
So that's why I think this whole state issue is much better than trying to devise.
Because right now they're trying to reintroduce Roe versus Wade law, the restriction.
Instead, they finally find, you know, and they say, 50 years we've been doing this.
Well, I'll tell you, I can find you some other stuff we've been doing for longer than 50 years that we ought to repeal and change too.
Maybe our foreign policy.
How do you do that with you know under the law?
Yeah, how do you fight all these wars and print all this money under the law?
You talk about big stuff there that they're involved in doing those kind of things.
And imagine if you're an anti-abortion activist, it's a heck of a lot easier just to deal with your state rather than have to convince all 50 states.
You know, you can get better organizations, you can work more toward the but I keep thinking about the psychology on the burden that these people weigh.
That's their whole life.
But they say, we're protecting freedom of child raising, you know, this sort of thing.
And yet, at the same time, what they're doing is they're protecting, they're protecting the concept that you can kill a live human fetus.
But you never can't say that.
And, you know, one thing that is absolutely prohibited in any court, I understand, is you can't show the pictures of what it's like.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
That's true.
Well, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul.
I think we tune on as much as we can for this one morning.
I want to thank our viewers for coming back.
I see all of you here.
I see you're having a lively chat, and we appreciate that.
I enjoy watching it.
And I enjoy the fact that you guys come and give us a little bit of your time each day.
And I hope that we can see you back again soon.
And over to you, Dr. Paul.
Oh, good.
So we had a little conversation here today about states' rights.
And I don't think states have rights, they have jurisdictions.
And I think that is very important.
We need more of it because when these 13 colonies came together, they did not think of them as a one country.
They thought there were 13 countries coming together.
They tried to protect it, but there were certain big issues that happened over our history that were purposely designed for allowing, you know, the people who believed in central control, and that is a central government, the federalists that wanted government there.
It's been moving ever since, really since the day the Constitution was passed.
Because, you know, Jefferson had his arguments with some people of how the country should run.
But I think that this continues.
And right now, I think it's very, very weak because sometimes they'll use the 14th Amendment to allow to do anything they want.
But the 14th Amendment didn't repeal the 9th and the 10th Amendment, and people have to realize that.
But it'll continue because I think most things can boil down to a moral principle.
And that's also the reason why we were warned by some of the founders that, you know, you have a republic and you have some decent things that we tried to do.
But if the people do not remain morally directed, you can't have a free society.
There would be too much corruption.
And we've drifted a long time from the republic that was designed.
Hopefully, we can continue the ongoing restoration of the principles of what is behind a republic.
And that is the reason we have our little organization, our Institute for Peace and Prosperity, because we do truly believe that is the best way to prosperity and peace.