Just a day after lame-duck US President Joe Biden announced a radical escalation in its Ukraine war policy - allowing Ukraine to use US weapons to strike deep inside Russia - the first of the ATACMS missiles were fired. Russia's modified nuclear doctrine provides for the use of WMDs if the Russian state is attacked even with non-nuclear weapons. Will we survive the Biden presidency? Also today, the knives are out for Trump's Attorney General pick, Matt Gaetz.
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?
Good.
Good.
We'll do more of the same.
Matter of fact, more of what we talked about a little bit about all that fancy missile stuff that the American taxpayers just went out and bought, and they're playing games with it.
They said, well, we have some friends over there in Ukraine, and they need these things to play games, and they can tease the Russians with it, just to make a point.
So lo and behold, these Army tactical missile systems, they sent them, and now, and we said, well, what if they try to use it?
Well, they used them, but in a somewhat of a reserved manner.
It obviously wasn't sent to kill a lot of people and demonstrate anything.
They were a little bit cautious about that.
But it's also, they increased the problems that the world is facing at one point where they didn't even cheat militarily.
It just made things worse for the world because the Russians are not going to put up with it.
And how much are they going to tolerate?
So it did have an effect, though.
In the middle of the night, here the financial markets noticed it.
The stocks were down.
Gold was up and people were responding.
But since then, the last couple eyes on the reassessment, maybe the markets are saying now, well, yeah, they demonstrated, but they didn't kill anybody, so we'll wait another day.
But I tell you what, they may wait another week, but the policy is wrong, and the policy is eventually going to come back to haunt us and hurt us.
And even though we get a pause here for an hour or two, I still think that the whole mess originates with the American people tolerating their government, runs a foreign policy, a foreign intervention, and that they accept the deep state and the empire.
And that's a big deal.
And to stop it is not very easy.
So that marches on, and it's still in place, and they're still a danger to us.
Just as NATO has been a danger to us, NATO started this whole mess.
But if you say that too loud, they might want to come cancel you or something.
They might not want us to say things like that.
But anyway, it was and is a big issue, probably not as big as it was a couple hours ago, but that doesn't mean a whole lot.
It's the policy that exists.
And right now, it's sort of in limbo what the Russians are going to do and what the next move will be by the United States and the NATO people telling the Iranians, Ukrainians, you know, what they can do, give them permission to stir up trouble.
Yeah, it's an astounding development that we started talking about a little bit yesterday when the permission was granted apparently by the Biden administration to Ukraine to use these attacks missiles and strike deep inside Russian territory.
It's astounding because you have a lame duck president with very few days left in office.
He was rejected for a second term.
That means his policies were rejected.
His party was rejected in both the House and Senate by the American people.
And that means the policies of his party were rejected by the American people.
So he literally has no mandate.
He's sitting in office in a transition period.
And I was listening to Alexander Mercurius coming in of the Duran, and he pointed out historically this transition period is meant for a smooth, relaxed transition to a new president.
Of course, that didn't happen when Trump took office the first time after the 2016 election.
That's when they launched all the Russiagate scam, if you remember.
They tried to mess him up in the beginning.
And this is the exact same gang trying to mess him up now by basically launching this war, by giving this permission.
So the strike did take place.
You can put the first clip up.
This is from HEDS, but it's all over the place.
Ukraine's attack and strike on Russia comes after Putin lowers threshold for nukes, if you can put that up.
So in anticipation of this permission, I think Russia expected it, Dr. Paul, they lowered the threshold for the use of weapons of mass destruction, i.e., nuclear weapons, to say that we will consider the use of nuclear weapons even if a non-nuclear device hits inside Russian territory.
So they've clearly, clearly laid out the markers for this.
And Biden just says, I don't care.
I think you're bluffing.
Now, the next one is a map to show where it struck.
It was launched from near the border with Russia.
If you can put that up here, that map.
And you can see the trajectory.
That line is the border.
So it's deep, deep in Russian territory.
Apparently, on a military base, Dr. Paul, that this missiles hit.
Apparently, supposedly they fired five, and the Russians were able to shoot down four, and one did reach its target.
There's video of it reaching the target.
So a NATO weapon essentially shot inside Russia.
And as we mentioned yesterday, and has been mentioned many times, the targeting, the intelligence, everything has to depend on American troops or NATO troops, specifically American troops when it comes to the ATACOMs.
So American troops launched that weapon.
Right.
You know, there was one individual making the case that it was still a strong message how determined the United States, NATO, and the Ukrainians are.
And the Russian Federations are really facing some big problems.
But maybe that could be reversed a little bit.
Maybe this is a step of saying maybe the NATO side and the American side are going to have some big problems.
At the moment, the big problems are hidden.
And if things are in flux, and until the new president is actually soared in, there is a little bit of hesitation on knowing exactly what will happen.
It just seems though that even though Trump is not the president, it's probably more, he's probably seeing it more like the president than the current president.
Yeah, yeah.
They can't expect Biden to respond in a reasonable way.
The problem with, I think, why we're seeing this now, this is their biggest policy move of the Biden four years.
The proxy war with Russia.
That was to be their singular achievement.
We were going to take down Russia, and it's a failure.
And they can't accept that it's a failure.
And so now they're going for broke.
They're going for their, you know, nothing left on the table.
They're going for broke.
And we're the ones on the receiving end.
In fact, let's put that next one up because Dmitry Medvedev, who is on the National Security Council of Russia, he responded to the attack by saying, Russia's new nuclear doctrine means NATO missiles fired against our country could be deemed an attack by the bloc on Russia.
Russia could retaliate with WMD against Kiev and key NATO facilities wherever they're located.
That means World War III.
What a huge risk they're taking, Dr. Paul.
Boy, it's so needless.
So needless.
Why do they take this risk?
And there's no way that the American people should accept this as this is good national defense policy.
It's exactly the opposite.
It endangers us.
It doesn't make us safer.
It doesn't make us richer.
It makes us poorer.
And then people have, you know, it's couched in this patriotism.
So if you say much about this, this policy is really a dangerous policy of endorsing and paying for this for the economic reasons, the moral reasons, the national defense reasons, that you're in big trouble.
So that's one thing I'm concerned about with the transition is that people can get pretty excited and read into some of the events in a more positive way than it's deserved.
Yeah, and again, the whole thing is based on the hope, and it is a hope, that they won't retaliate, that they won't launch a nuclear weapon against Poland, for example.
But I mean, like you say, that's such a huge risk.
Is there any benefit to it?
No, not really.
Well, you know, I probably have a bit of naivety with me because I keep thinking, they're not going to drop a nuclear bomb.
Would they do this?
I mean, just think, there's only been two dropped in a war effort, and we did it.
We didn't even ask permission for that one.
Well, there is a little sentiment in Congress that's opposed to this.
Unfortunately, not enough.
But as could be expected, the best member of the House of Representatives, Thomas Massey, now he came out with a post on Twitter X today, and he said, and this makes a good point, Dr. Paul, he says, by authorizing long-range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional act of war that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens.
This is an impeachable offense.
But the reality is he's an emasculated puppet of the deep state.
Strong words.
So, you know, it's obviously, he's saying, you know, impeachment should be something especially used to curt terror power, but it's a little bit too late and too little right now.
It's almost like he's been impeached.
He's not the president.
Yeah, yeah, that's true.
He's been impeached already.
And, you know what?
And the jury is out.
And the jury was the American people.
And they voted to impeach him and try to get rid of him completely.
But then there's this interim that will be very interesting and maybe fraught with danger because here we are dealing with something that we consider very dangerous.
And it may be a long time until the transition occurs because it looks like some of the people are actually looking to fight the transition and try to put a monkey wrench in there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
You know, the Democrats said this election is all about democracy.
The American people said, okay, we don't want you.
And then now they change their minds.
It's pretty astonishing.
But I dug something up, Dr. Paul, which is an interview, I think, yesterday or the day before of Jake Sullivan, the president's national security advisor, who probably along with Blinken is behind this.
We don't think you were saying earlier when we were talking in your in your office that they were trying to take a picture and they couldn't find Biden.
He was hiding behind a palm tree somewhere.
So my guess is he's not in charge.
But someone like Jake Sullivan is.
Put up that next clip because this is the transcript for the interview of Jake Sullivan.
And I just want to make a couple of quick points because, so the Russians say they consider this an attack on Russia because it's American targeting.
Americans are shooting the weapons.
They just happen to be located in Ukraine.
Well, Sullivan basically just ignores that.
Go to the next one.
He said, if the U.S. were to authorize the use of any weapon system, including his weapon system, it wouldn't mean direct U.S. participation in the war.
Well, of course, you can dream that and you can think that.
That doesn't make it true.
But here's the next one.
And we talked about it a little bit yesterday.
If you go to that next clip, because he's interviewed about, the interviewer asks him all of these things.
Well, you've delivered all of these F-16s and all these things, but do you think maybe you did it too late?
But here is a key phrase that Sullivan says.
He says, have we seen a marked difference since we provided tanks to Ukraine in terms of the battlefield?
Similarly, on F-16s, have we seen a marked difference?
Our view is that there's not one weapon system that makes a difference in this battle.
It's about manpower.
So here's Jake Sullivan admitting that none of this makes a difference.
So let's go back to World War I and have the manpower and send them in with some tanks.
So they're saying that this ATACM strike is not going to make a difference either because they need to recruit younger men, younger boys, kids, women, whatever.
So it's an admission.
So it's really astonishing, I think, that this is such a danger.
I think this is a reflection of a globalist approach to trying to run the world by a clique of special interest.
And usually they're outside of government.
They're in a deep state.
That's why we don't say, you know, just somebody at the State Department or the president.
They're sort of inconsequential in some ways.
So they do this and they think they can get away with it.
But I think it just, to me, I see so many things in a monetary way.
Now, when you can keep spending and run out of debt and print money, yes, you can get away with it, but eventually you make your problem worse.
This is what happens in this thing.
It's sort of like they're inflating the intervention.
And that means the problems can be a lot worse when the bubble bursts, when this delusion, they're deluded into believing.
I guess they believe some of this stuff.
Because it isn't in anybody's interest, but they are motivated.
But I think the motivation comes from usually power and money.
A lot of people are saying that they hope that Russia will just wait it out and not respond like they're threatening.
But of course, that'll embolden the Hawks because they'll say, see, we told you they were bluffing.
So it's really, I think a big hope we can have is that Trump is sufficiently irritated by this action that he'll be even more determined to make peace when he gets in office or do what he can.
I did want to raise one other issue before we go on to the second one, Dr. Paul, and that's from the same Jake Sullivan interview.
Because we talked about this yesterday.
This is key, I think, is this North Korea thing.
Now go to the next clip, because here's Jake Sullivan again asserting this idea that North Korea is fighting with Russia.
He said, it's about the fact that Russia has gone to another country from another part of the world, North Korea, brought in thousands of their troops to the front lines, etc., etc.
So this is the justification for the Atacams.
But, you know, we both read the Moon of Alabama blog because it's very insightful.
Well, he went and he did some digging.
And if you go to the next clip, he found out that the RAND Corporation, this is the Pentagon's think tank very close to the CIA, they released a report in October calling for an information campaign of this exact type.
CIA's Man in Ukraine00:02:29
This is from the report, What Should the U.S. Do?
Given the differences in the objectives of Russia, China, and North Korea, the U.S. should be mounting major information operations against them.
And then I'm not going to do all of these clips that I made, Dr. Paul, but the fact is that this General Budanov, right after this RAND Corporation report came out, he started talking about North Korean troops in Russia.
And it turns out that he was trained actually by the CIA.
He was in the unit 2245 of the Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate.
He essentially is the CIA's man in Ukraine.
So the CIA's think tank sends to the CIA's man in Ukraine, here are your marching orders.
We need to talk about North Korea.
And then the administration says, oh, North Korea's there, let's send them the tackles.
Yeah, this North Korea thing, it just really bugs me because, you know, it's mentioned in the Zero Hedge article, and he said the facility reportedly had large stock bottles of anti-aircraft missiles, munitions for multiple launch rocket systems, artillery ammunition, and guided bombs, much of which we've heard about in the news, much of which was supplied by North Korea.
Now, is Russia in that bad a shape?
I mean, they talked about sending the troops over there already, and now they're talking about that the technology.
They're sending the missiles and things to Russia.
So there's something.
There's a disconnect.
It doesn't make any sense.
Yeah.
It doesn't make any sense.
But all they're doing is trying to build up the anti-Russian sentiment.
And while we're at it, let's throw in Korea too, North Korea.
Well, I think also it's just like in 2016, the Democrats are trying to poison the waters.
So now if Trump does anything to make peace, they'll say, well, look, here we told you.
You know, it's terrible.
Well, we'll keep an eye on it.
Hopefully we won't all go up in flames, you know, from this.
But the other thing we wanted to talk about is, if you're ready to move on, Dr. Marshall.
I'm all, I'm ready.
Yeah, is we both agree kind of the low-hanging fruit.
They want to do something to harm President Trump's picks for his administration.
And unfortunately, to us at least, they're going after one of the few really good ones.
Put on that next clip.
This is Politico coming out today with a pretty disturbing article, if you can put that one up.
Senate Republicans deliver a message to Trump.
Senate Republicans' Dilemma00:08:23
Gates' confirmation is in jeopardy.
What do you think?
Well, you know, at the beginning when it first broke, I said, well, this is a mess, and it's going to cause some problems.
I don't know who this Getz guy was.
I read about it and think, you know, but the more I read, the worse the person was.
And I thought, well, is everything they've said about him true?
And then you get skeptical because there were some people out there that believe and still do believe everything that was charged against Trump was true.
And it turns out there was very few truths in all those charges made.
So where does Getz come in on that?
I suspect that he's had, you know, on the margin.
But the whole thing is, is there's always a real reason behind it.
And I think his style and his effectiveness, I think some of the members of Congress, as I recall, they can get very jealous.
If he, you know, he, he really was running the show.
I was like, where did he get this?
But he was good on his feet.
He was explicit and totally, and he got the attention.
But then when he got rid of Kevin McCarthy, I mean, holy man, I think the people are still defending Kevin.
And they said he's not looking for a job in the administration anyway.
But anyway, I think that has some of the psychological reasons this happened.
But it's a mess.
So I imagine Gates has some vulnerability, but I think the way Trump looks at it, I sort of understand what Trump's going through.
Because what happens if you've been for three, how many years?
Six years, been accused of every crime in the world, and he could be sent to prison for a thousand years.
And they never made a charge against him.
You could see why he would be slow to anger and to punish because he wants somebody that's tough.
Because, you know, what is one of the main complaints I have in the coup that has occurred in this country is to take over the Justice Department.
There is no justice.
And I can understand it, but that doesn't mean that I know all the details.
But the issue is I didn't know much about it, about Gates, and I was questioning.
But now, just because of his, now I'm getting to know who his enemies are, I keep thinking, you know, we ought to be careful before we join the bandwagon and say this, because if he's guilty of all that, we've got to put him in jail, you know.
Oh, you mean he's going to be the Attorney General?
That's another stick in the eye of the establishment, because there's some establishments still in the Republican Party, you know.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
You bring up something really interesting that I don't think most people understand.
And you were in the middle of it, so you know how it works.
You use the word jealousy.
And people think it's all about high ideals in the Congress and in the House, but that's a really good point.
They may have been jealous that he was able to do that.
And in Congress, attention is big, how much time you get to say things.
And, you know, I could easily be excluded from a debate on going to war or given one minute, something like that.
But that was one reason why I sort of liked the special orders because the way they divvied up that area, even that they tried to control, too.
They did.
But people are very easy to be very jealous.
Matter of fact, I've used that word about the left with Trump.
The main reason why they can't stand Trump is he won.
And they're jealous.
How did he know how to run a campaign?
So he must have cheated the whole way.
It turns out exactly the opposite was true.
So it was jealousy.
And I think that after they get jealousy, jealousy turns into hate.
And that's why now there's more hate breaking out in Washington.
And there are certainly, but the country is sort of split on the people now that realize they don't need to hate Trump and others are hating him worse and more than ever.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, let's dig into this article a little bit.
The thing that's irritating, it should irritate Americans.
You know, the Republicans, they find, they got the Senate, they got the House, they've got full control, and they can't even get the people in that the head of their party, Donald Trump, wants in.
Put this next one up.
Now, this is from the article.
Numerous Republican lawmakers told Donald Trump and his team, go back one, please, that they believe his pick to be Attorney General, controversial Representative Matt Gates, has little chance of being confirmed.
Now, if it was a Democrat Senate, Dr. Paul, I would say, yeah, this is going to be tricky.
This is going to be, this is going to call for some horse trading.
But no, he's got the Republicans in.
They should back their president.
I mean, I'm not a partisan person, but you know, if the Democrats were in there, it would be locked step.
It's only the Republicans that continually do this.
See, they should be more concerned about the morality and the quality of individuals interpreting the Constitution and use that as the opposition.
But now they go on these other things and they personalize it.
I don't know how many years that this is involved.
I think it's a good many years that some of these charges are made.
So it's not unusual to see.
It just means that they're more desperate than ever and they're very, very frustrated and very, very angry.
And I hope they get satisfied with their gamesmanship because what do they have left after that?
They have the qualifications for somebody making use of violence, which is the most outrageous thing to consider.
Yeah.
Well, we certainly don't know if these allegations are true.
And if true, we certainly don't condone that behavior.
However, both of us have been around the hill long enough to understand that in the scheme of things, some of these members really are not on high moral standards, to say the least.
Because, you know, when people are vying for a position in the House, you know, who's going to be Speaker and all this, and there's three or four people, that is a vicious fight that goes on.
And when they lose, then there's a lot of resentment, and they'll try to get their opponent somewhere or another.
Yeah, yeah.
That's how it works.
That's the sausage being made.
Well, the last clip I want to just put up is, if you'll put that last one up again, it said, despite the lobbying campaign, things are not, I'll go to the next one, please.
Things are not looking peachy.
Nearly a dozen Senate Republicans refused to say they'd back Gates when prodded by Politico last night.
Those who are speaking aren't being particularly kind.
He's got an uphill climb, Senator Joni Ernst told reporters.
It's going to be rough.
I saw one senator, or they were trying to explain their dilemma, but they said that what we have to consider, and there's all the problems, if we go against Trump, there may be a pro-Trump opponent in the next Republican primary.
So they're back to that.
So that's why I don't think those four people, they might be trying to stir up a lot of that.
But if there's five of them that have to stand up against it, I bet they have second thoughts, mainly because of the endorsement Trump has gotten from the American people.
And I don't know specifically, I don't remember exactly what Musk said, but I think he said something like his PAC is going to go after any member or senator who don't back Trump's choices.
So there could be that as well.
Arguing for Liberty00:02:17
I mean, it's a little bit uncomfortable a billionaire choosing whatever party they're in, but that could cause them to make some decisions as well.
That's why, wouldn't it be nice if all of a sudden money wasn't necessary to get involved in campaigns?
And you had to do it on the issues.
Ideas.
That would be novel.
But the only way they say, well, yeah, let's write a law and do that.
You can't spend always write a law.
The government has to write more rules.
Well, I guess I'll close out today, Dr. Paul.
Thank our viewers for watching the program.
Please hit the thumbs up, the like, or whatever it is on the platform that you're watching the show.
And please subscribe if you're not subscribed and pass our show around.
And thank you for supporting the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Over to you, sir.
Very good.
And I too want to thank our viewers for tuning in today, but also for supporting us over the years because we find that the best way to spread the message of liberty is through individuals.
And in spite of the fact that the internet is great and when you get a lot of people reading your material, that's good.
But you know, the most lasting thing is person to person.
I was told that in an early campaign, that if you talk to a person and ask them if your vote, that is worth an empty number of dollars.
So, the personal approach.
So, when somebody can, in a proper manner, in a polite manner, argue the case for liberty, that is a great deal of influence because so often, if you do that, you'll have people come back and say, you know, that's exactly what I've been thinking.
And then they're delighted to discover there's other people.
And I know I experienced that.
A lot of people tell me they do.
You think you're the only one in the world that believes in true liberty.
But I think everybody has been, you know, introduced to true liberty, and it's a natural thing.
And it doesn't take a lot of reading to do about it.
It just has to be where we open up our minds to understanding how liberty functions and how important that is if you want to bring about peace and prosperity for the people.