All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:46
Going Out With A Bang? Biden Approves Long-Range Attacks Inside Russia.

If the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, President Biden (or whoever is running his foreign policy) has, in the waning moments of his presidency, agreed finally to allow Ukraine to strike deep in Russian territory with US ATACMS missiles. Putin has warned that such a move could spark WWIII. Is Biden trying to "Trump-proof" his proxy war? Also today, the Pentagon fails its audit...again.

|

Time Text
Ukraine's Weapon Use Authorization 00:14:50
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Good.
Is this a good week?
I hope so.
Starting.
We'll look forward to that, huh?
So we have to look around for something good to say that, well, we're doing okay.
And so far, the wars haven't massively escalated, but we still see warnings on the horizon.
They better be careful.
But we do want to talk about a policy shift which concerns us because it could lead to some negative news, some very bad news.
And I'm going to quote from one of the Zero Hedge articles, which we frequently do.
Yes, we do.
And this one has to do with authorizing Ukraine's use of our weapons, or we authorizing Ukraine to do it, or who knows what.
In a major policy shift, Biden authorizes Ukraine's use of missiles to hit targets inside Russia.
I keep thinking, you know, a president has a lot of power and a lot of clout, but should starting or expanding a war just be this one guy wakes up.
He says, oh, let's give them bombs and let them bomb them.
I think they should be bombed.
So that is, it's just the way we have gotten into these wars that gets my attention because we've spent time trying to prevent them, but we've also spent time trying to end them.
And the one thing for sure, they last a lot longer than the people who promote the wars think they'll last, costs a lot more money, a lot more people die, and it's long-lasting and very difficult to quit.
And a couple examples, Vietnam, of course, is bad.
The Middle East, Bush's Middle East wars, they're really not over completely.
And then they just go, and we expect that these wars should stop, but they last a lot longer.
And this I see, and I think you'll agree, this doesn't make any sense.
It's very dangerous.
And is it necessary for us to protect our national defense?
Is this protecting our national security?
See, I don't see any of that.
And over the years, I've talked about making use of the Constitution to try to stay out of these wars by arguing the case.
You can't do this.
If you're going to war, it's supposed to be that you declare the war and to get the people to understand.
And the people, you know, let their congressmen know, yes, this is a good war.
We've got to start this war.
But the first time I did this, it was in 1976.
I was elected on a special election, and I ended up very quickly the first week or so ago on a radio program with a Democrat who was on a military committee talking about foreign policy.
And so I made the statement, you know, why are we going to war when they don't declare war?
And it was sort of a pompous type of answer.
He said, he says, you don't understand.
They're never going to use a declaration of war again.
And he was so affirmed.
I said, oh, that sounds terrible.
But he was right.
Why do it?
It costs too much attention to what they're actually doing.
And besides, they're not war, they're police actions and who knows what other onsense.
And then in 19, you know, leading up to the Bush Middle Eastern wars, you know, I tried that old-fashioned argument.
If you want this war, why don't you declare this war?
Well, you remember quite well what they thought of that.
So that doesn't seem to work.
And now we're facing the fact that one president can wake up some morning and have control, total control by a single person to say, oh, okay, I think we should bomb Russia.
And deep into Russia, who's already warned us, don't do it, because we know whose weapons they are.
But nevertheless, he gets up and he has his authority.
And, you know, just think how quickly we went into war after 9-11 into Afghanistan.
And everybody knows about leaving Afghanistan, what a mess it was.
But, you know, generally speaking, if you look at the many times we've left, you know, the war zones, it's been bad.
You know, they don't even talk about how bad it looked with Vietnam, with all the thousands killed.
So this to me is very dangerous.
He gives them permission.
Yeah, I know there are weapons the American taxpayers paid for.
The military industrial complex ordered them.
But, you know, the Ukrainians aren't allowed to use them unless we tell them.
So they decided that there's a great deal of danger there for the Ukrainian people.
So Biden says, you better go ahead and use them.
And of course, there's a few reasons why that's a bad choice.
Yeah, and it's extraordinary that we wake up on Sunday and we see this headline because the Biden administration.
Now, the other thing that's extraordinary, by the way, is the fact that I think it should be pretty well understood that Biden himself is not making these decisions.
Yeah, right.
So we have someone who's running foreign policy who was not elected.
We don't know really what authority they have to do this.
But nevertheless, we wake up on Sunday morning and we see that while the U.S., the Biden administration, has been for a long time resisting the plea from Zelensky, allow us to use these ATACM missiles deep into Russia.
Let us fire them in there.
And even top Pentagon officials have said, this will not change the trajectory of the war.
This will have no significant impact on what's happening in the battlefield.
So that's, I think, one of the reasons why the administration has resisted until now, because there's huge downside with literally zero upside.
So all of a sudden, we wake up and they've shifted massively on this.
And if you put up this first clip, now this is from Dave DeCamp on antiwar.com, and he introduces the topic this morning on their show.
And there are a couple of things to remember about this, Dr. Pawn.
This title is Report.
Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range U.S. missiles.
The one important part is U.S. officials told the paper, this is a reported by the New York Times, that Ukraine can now use ATACMs, which have a range of up to 190 miles, to strike Russian territory.
The ATACOMs are fired by U.S.-made multiple rocket launch systems, including the HIMARS.
Okay, now this is the part that's important.
Ukraine can only fire the HIMARS with coordinates provided by or confirmed by the U.S. and its allies, meaning that the U.S. will now directly support strikes deep into Russia.
Now, we always play the game, which is what if the shoe were on the other foot?
You know, what if Russia were with Mexico plotting out the different targets for Mexico to strike with Russian weapons on American cities?
We would rightly be incensed.
We would be at war with Russia.
Well, that's exactly what's happening.
You know, they didn't get quite that far, but they were approaching that with the Cuban crisis.
Yes, they were.
Because it was the Russians, and they were putting missiles in there, and Kennedy faced this thing.
And, of course, the solution to that was finally for Kennedy actually to very secretly, because it would have been annoying very much to the deep state to work something out with Khrushchev.
So it's just that they don't have any sense of what might happen, and something else is very superficial.
You know, it's down to some people.
Maybe the whole thing they think about all day long is how are they going to get another contract from the government and make more war profits?
And also, there are some people who believe in globalism.
It says that no matter how many articles you read, it's always, well, this really started when the Russians decided to invade and start the war with Ukraine.
And they don't start back a little bit earlier than that.
And matter of fact, a little extended history of what Russia has stood up to.
So it's something that's there, but right now they're doing exactly what we have mentioned and talked about it and claimed it could get out of here very quickly.
And that would be the big danger because, well, so far, you know, in some ways, Russia's been rather restrained.
And a lot of people wouldn't say that.
They started this war, but they don't look like they're anxious to exchange the big weapons between Ukraine or Europe or whatever they want to do.
Yeah, let's put on this next clip because this is where Putin is very explicit about what would happen if the U.S. were targeting missiles into Russia.
So this is from the anti-war.com article.
It says, in response to those calls and comments from Western officials supporting the idea, Russian President Vladimir Putin said if NATO supported long-range strikes in Russia, it would put the Western military alliance, quote, at war with Russia.
And that's exactly what they're doing.
It's like you're putting all your money and you're going to the roulette and putting it on red.
You know, I mean, there is such a huge risk, again, a huge risk because what they're betting on is that Putin is bluffing.
And we have seen no evidence throughout the history.
We know enough about Vladimir Putin, who took office in 1999.
He's been in office long enough that we know that he's not known for bluffing.
He may be known for a lot of things, good and bad, but bluffing isn't one of them.
So we are risking a nuclear war on the presumption that he's bluffing.
He's just kidding.
I'm just kidding, man.
And it's extraordinarily reckless.
You know, it's interesting about our politics, the domestic politics now, of why Biden might be doing this, maybe to give the incoming administration a bigger problem.
There certainly could be a bigger problem.
But they also claim that the American people support all this, but I think that's where we've seen the shifting.
They're not as casual about this.
And I think the administration, even though we don't know everything that's going to come from the administration, but I think so far the administration has called attention to some of this.
And that I think is good.
So the American people are alert to it rather than waiting another 20 years.
Oh, okay, now we have to get out of where?
Ukraine or someplace.
But we've talked on this show many times about the Biden administration's desire to, quote, Trump-proof different aspects of incoming policy.
They passed the one bill, I think it was, about NATO, that would forbid or make it impossible for a president to pull out of NATO.
Certain other things, Trump-proofing the presidency.
I think with money for Ukraine, they tried to Trump-proof it so he couldn't block the money.
And that was my first reaction: is that this is an attempt to Trump-proof Ukraine policy, make it so that the president can't come in and deliver on his promise to end the war.
And I just had a friend write to me this morning who's following things as closely, and he said, you know, there's an even chance also that this is sort of following Trump's wishes because he is known to want to escalate to de-escalate.
And if that's the case, I think unfortunately it's a very big mistake on his part.
But, you know, all those options have potential of escalation because they don't have control of how the people are going to react and the accidents that can happen or the false flags and all of the kind of gimmicks that might be there because there are a lot of different motivation.
But we started on this one, and a lot of people are starting to recognize when they're starting to look into this history because you and I started talking about this in 2014 and anticipated that this was a bad step in the wrong direction.
And I wish we could get them to march the other direction.
Well, the one thing that I've learned working with you, unfortunately, for several wars starting, they always start with a little whiff of BS, sometimes a big whiff of it.
We remember it in the Iraq war.
It was the mobile chemical weapons labs.
It was Saddam's going to send gliders into New York.
All of these things that now are so absurd.
Back then, they were presented breathlessly in the New York Times front page.
So there's always this heavy sprinkling of nonsense and garbage.
And I think we're pretty good at sniffing it out right now.
And that's what we've been talking about a couple of times this last week.
I think the BS we're sniffing has to do with these North Korean troops that are supposedly in Russia fighting in Russia.
It's on two levels.
The first, if Russia and North Korea do have a military alliance and they do decide to do joint military operations, that's certainly something normal that any normal sovereign country can do.
We have the same kind of alliance with NATO where we, you know, we do the same thing.
But on the other hand, there's something fishy about it.
Now, this is the zero hedge write-up.
If you can put that next one up of this, the trigger now, even cited by the administration, according to Bloomberg, on this shift, is North Korea's, quote, decision to deploy thousands of troops into Russia to help Moscow reclaim land in the Kursk border region.
Now, we have not seen any proof that there are North Korean troops there whatsoever.
It's kind of one of those trust us things.
But this is from the Hedge article, and this is where I think there should be some huge red flags, Dr. Paul.
As many as 12,000 North Korean troops have been sent to Russia, according to U.S., South Korean, and Ukrainian assessments.
So what does that tell you?
Neither of these would have an interest in playing up the idea that, oh my gosh, the North Koreans are coming.
Of course, the Ukrainians are desperate to have NATO involved.
North Koreans in Russia? 00:02:30
They're losing the war.
Of course, the Biden administration is desperate to have these, to be involved in it.
And certainly South Korea, well, they're hardly an unbiased party when it comes to North Korea.
They're essentially still at war.
You know, I told you what my first reaction was here that isn't it amazing this could be construed that Russia needs help where are they going to get help they can't defend themselves oh we'll get the North Koreans to come in and help.
He can handle them.
But that's why I think you're questioning, really, do you think there are 12,000?
Could be, but again, it could be in this day and age, it could be very legitimate.
But the bombing is gone beyond just making a bad judgment.
It's making a very dangerous judgment by using those missiles and planning to hit the targets inside Russia.
And it's also so illogical because if the Russians are hurting that bad militarily, then why is it that we need to be spending billions and billions or more to sit back and wait for them to lose?
They're so desperate they need a couple North Koreans to help them out.
So there's just no logic.
Well, I think from what I've seen of Donald Trump Jr., I think he's astute.
I think he very much leans in our direction.
The people who know him have said that.
So I think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt.
So to close out on this segment, let's put up that tweet.
Now, this is a tweet, a post on Twitter X from Unusual Wells talking about the Biden's allowance of using these weapons, to which Donald Trump Jr. says, the military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get World War III going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.
Got to lock in those trillions, life be damned.
Imbeciles.
That's a pretty good tweet.
So it looks like he's definitely on it.
Other bits and pieces of information that he may understand exactly what we're talking about.
Yeah.
Well, here on the other side of the spectrum, here's the news.
Here's the reaction of Alex Soros, the son of George Soros, who's taking over the empire.
Here's his reaction to the report that the Biden administration has unleashed the missiles.
Put this next one up.
Alex Soros, this is great news.
It's great news that World War III is coming.
So that tells you everything you want to know about those two individuals, I think.
Yeah, for sure.
Encouragement For Pentagon Audit 00:09:47
So do you want to go on to another item somewhat related to this?
How do we pay for this stuff?
Oh, I know what we do.
If you don't know what's going on, and I had a complaint a few years ago about not knowing exactly what went on, the issuing of our dollars, you know, in a monetary system.
So we've been talking about doing what?
Finding out.
Why do they do these things in secret?
So I suggested, well, we'd like to get rid of the Fed, but in the meantime, why don't we audit the Fed?
But we actually ended up with some votes that showed a pretty strong support.
It was natural for people to say, well, we should have some transparency in knowing what they're doing.
But it's been in recent years, which I heartily supported.
You know, the Pentagon's pretty big.
Of course, the Pentagon and the Fed is related because I think the Fed works hand in glove with the Pentagon and provides some finance necessary in an international front.
But the Pentagon still can't, I think it was in 2018 they started auditing, but they never really passed the audit.
And I keep thinking, why is it that they can't figure this out?
I think it's too big.
And I think it's so big that they ought to shrink in size, even the Pentagon.
So while the new group to cut back on the spending, I'm hoping that they will also look at this, and they have indicated that they may well do that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Let's put this up.
This is from Hedge 2.
Pentagon fails seventh audit in a row.
It aims for a clean audit in 2028.
So there is a bright spot.
By 2028, they might be able to figure out where the heck all that money has gone.
And the official budget is, of course, in the mid-800 billions.
But in fact, it's well over a trillion a year that is sent to the military.
Now, if you go to the next one after this, this is from Kyle Anzalone's report in the Libertarian Institute.
The Department of Defense inability to track its finances continues as the Pentagon failed its seventh audit on Friday, a massive budget of $820 billion, spent over $170 million on the failed audit.
The auditors are happy, right?
They've been working probably, oh, you can leave that up actually, working all year, got probably good pay.
We don't know.
We don't know.
You know, they might have a dozen or two auditors working on this.
That leads to how many they actually have.
1,700 auditors spent $78 million, you know, reducing the size and scope of these areas.
And so my question to myself, when I read that, I said, who's going to audit the auditors?
There you go.
We need another commission to audit the auditors.
That'll only be $100 million, not $170 million.
We'll get a discount on that one.
But here's something that stood out to me, Dr. Paul, because you actually touched on it a second ago.
Why is it so hard to figure it out?
Put on the next one.
This is an indication as why it's so hard.
Teams of auditors conducted hundreds of site visits assessing how the DOD manages taxpayer dollars to target its operations, which include more than 4,000 sites in more than 160 countries.
Maybe that's the problem.
Maybe we have too many sites in too many countries, and that's why they can't audit them.
Yeah, they represent us, and they support the foreign policy that both parties have supported, and that is we truly are an empire.
And we have the strong dollar and this richest people in the world and the best military and all these things.
But empires, just like the Fed is part of the empire, they're not meant for exposure.
They're meant for secrecy.
And this is one of the reasons I don't think they'll ever get to the bottom of it.
And then when you think of auditing this thing, how huge it is, trillions of dollars.
And how do they audit a tank that doesn't work very well?
They probably put, oh, yeah, we spent $30, well, a couple million dollars for that.
So what are they going to count at that?
It's worth zero.
But they're not going to mark that down.
Yeah, you're right.
I mean, we've talked about this on the show, how they keep looking under their couch and finding another $10 billion for Ukraine.
I mean, it just happened again this past week.
So that would lead you to believe that seven times they can't be.
I think it's actually a feature, not a bug.
I think they want to not be able to be audited because that way they can put everything around however they wish.
And they don't want the audit of the Fed either, especially the international transaction.
So, yes, lip service, maybe.
That's why we are hoping that the significant change in this administration from the past administration that we'll get some exposure here of how the empire is really operating.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, here's one.
I had to put this quote up because I think probably one of the least impressive Defense Secretaries, certainly that I remember, there have been more evil ones, but probably not less impressive ones.
Go to the next one because we need a laugh at the end of this one.
Now, this is Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
He said, we are determined to reach this milestone, i.e., passing an audit.
I have zero tolerance for fraud, waste, and abuse in the Pentagon or elsewhere.
So that's a bit of a laugh.
See, they figure that if you have better auditors and better accountants, all that deals with it.
But it has to be look at what is our Pentagon.
It's pretty big.
And are you going to get people who have perfect judgment?
And are they going to be people who have high respect for the Constitution and personal privacy and all these things?
No, but they've been using those words for so long.
We've passed it quite a few times in the Congress, at least in the House.
Everybody's against waste, fraud, and abuse.
But government is wasteful and fraudulent and very abusive.
And the people suffer.
The people wake up.
Well, here's a little bit of encouragement, though.
Let's leave on kind of a positive note.
Because we've heard Elon and Vivek talk about the Department of Government Efficiency, and it's an interesting idea.
But we've heard this before, and we heard they kind of tinker around the margins and nothing really changes.
Well, this is interesting because Elon Musk did a post on X where he commented on the inability to audit the Pentagon, and he said, that sounds like a job for Doge, which is Department of Government Efficiency, to which you responded, great idea, audit the Pentagon.
And Elon then commented on your comment with two flames, meaning that's on fire, meaning good idea.
So if they really want to look into government efficiency, if they're going to open the can on the top of the Pentagon, that's a good sign.
Yes, and you know, they're expanding their assistance to the new organization.
And that's good, and that might be bad, because they want a lot of people.
And he said they will all be volunteers, and they don't have to be on the payroll.
But I don't, well, there's a few questions I have.
How's this going to work?
Because it's so ingrained.
And the whole system has developed.
I'm sure they had probably some bad things happening in our very early histories of our government in our country.
And it just gets bigger numbers and more people.
And when we think of the people who have suffered, and I saw an article just recently talking again about all this spending and deficit.
Again, the war between the rich and the poor.
And that's what happens when you have special interest government because the military industrial complex, they're not complaining that the working man doesn't have enough money, you know, or the Fed's printing too much money.
Print more, print more.
We'll take care of it for you.
Well, I'll close out by thanking our audience and noting, actually, there's one of the things I wanted to say, Dr. Paul.
I didn't bring it up to you yet, but I don't know if you saw this, but Jay Bhattacharya is apparently being considered for the National Institutes for Health director, which would be a good sign because remember he was canceled during COVID.
Remember, we followed him closely and supported him.
He was the only one with the courage to speak out, canceled by everyone.
So it would be really nice.
And it also would be an admission, I think, by Trump that some things were not done properly during COVID.
Interesting.
Now, if you have a group of doctors here and a group of doctors here and you're looking for people to really help you out and get to the bottom of things or hire them for some job, that you go to the people who were found guilty as charge and you're canceled and we're kicking you out and taking your life.
They're all of a sudden up at the top because they're the ones they're looking for because they're believable.
But the way they did that, that was unforgivable.
The way they treated the people that all they wanted to do was tell the truth, though.
Yeah.
Well, if we could put that last clip up, been watching Bitcoin.
Actually, Dr. Paul, we have gotten more Bitcoin donations in the past couple of weeks than we have in a long time.
And they're not giants.
Some of them are nice.
Some of them are less.
But we appreciate every single one.
Bitcoin is way up.
We hope it stays up.
But it also means that your Bitcoin donation to the Ron Paul Institute goes much, much further.
So please keep sending us those coins.
We appreciate it.
More Bitcoin Donations 00:01:24
We need to keep going and keep telling the truth, regardless of who's in office.
We appreciate your viewing us.
Dr. Pong?
Very good.
I want to thank our viewers for tuning in because without you we can't do very much.
And right now we're in between two administrations and actually there's a lot of interest in it.
We have a lot of interest and nobody knows exactly how this will work out.
But I have some questions and I have some concerns.
But I'll tell you what, compared to what, you know, compared to what we were living with for the past four years and what might well come here in the next four years, I think we could take a short sigh of relief.
But I'll tell you what, we can't go to sleep at night keeping up our guard because we have drifted a long way.
If you look at the indicator that will tell you how far astray we have gone, just look at the expenditures and look at the deficit and look at how much has to be printed next week, next year, and on and on.
And that is going to be a payment that will not be easy just to erase.
But I think we're in the right track and we have joined in and those who would like to limit the size and scope of government and emphasize the need for more freedom.
Export Selection