All Episodes
Previous Next
June 3, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:20
Trump Slams 'Crazy' Rand Paul Over Opposition To Monster Debt Increase In 'BBB'

|

Time Text
Dollar Under Attack: Trillion Spent 00:14:17
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 this morning?
Good.
We have any problems to talk about in the world or world?
Just a couple.
Just a couple.
Everything is rosy.
It looks like the neocons are always busy.
I bet they never rest.
They don't.
You know, if peace would break out, they're there to take care of that.
They'll stop that kind of stuff from breaking out.
But anyway, yesterday was sort of exciting if a person was interested in gold, watching gold as a reflection of what's happening in politics.
And it was exciting too because there was a lot happening in politics, but also in economics.
Gold was up sharply, one of the biggest days.
But the other thing is, silver broke out and it went up dramatically, almost $2 for a while.
So it was really going to town.
But most people, including myself, thought it was related to the fact that there was a little bit of news in the Middle East.
There was some bombing going on in eastern Russia.
And it surprised us.
Zelensky did that?
Who knows about Lizensky being able to do that?
Anyway, it sounded tremendously powerful, but it was a tremendously powerful PR stunt because it wasn't meant to be a military strategic move and followed up by an invasion.
But it made the markets nervous, especially the precious metals.
And I think it was part of the reason gold went up.
But I think there's another reason, more than one reason, because the ultimate reason why gold goes up when there's a little bit of uncertainty is the fact that we have a huge debt, huge deficit.
We print too much money and we devalue the dollar and therefore the price has to go up.
It's logic.
So that's really the basic reason that it happened.
But there's also the technical factors of people trading gold.
They buy and sell and they're jumping on the bandwagon.
But it was a reaction to that event yesterday, plus the additional emphasis on us just printing too much money.
But today it's different.
Gold's down a little bit, which one would expect because it's a correction after a big gain.
And it also had to digest the fact that the Kirsch Bridge was again attacked and bombed and put out of commission.
This was a big deal, but it didn't have that much effect politically or on economics.
The gold still went down, and it was sort of the technical factors that overruled the fundamentals at that particular time.
But those are the kind of things that will affect gold.
But I try to simplify it for myself and where I talk about gold because gold is very important in evaluating a monetary policy.
If a currency is going down in value, the price of things have to go up.
And if it's an international world currency, if it goes down in purchasing power, it has a big effect.
And that's what we have.
We have the reserve currency of the world.
And we are responsible for most of the markets, especially in the metals.
But there's always somebody trying to change it.
There's a group of countries that are doing it, which includes China.
They don't particularly like what we do, and they're working very hard to undermine us.
But the fundamentals are still there, and there's still a lot of printing of money.
It's also a reflection that the people in this country aren't saying, Congress is there.
They're working.
Trump is working together with Elon Musk, and aren't they cutting back on spending?
And won't this help out a lot?
Well, so far, there's been a lot of talk.
There was a statistic I saw just yesterday, I think it was.
Somebody made the calculation.
Our interest payment is $1 billion per day, and it will not be static because at the rate it's going, our Congress, and within the midst of all this demand to cut back, it looks like the national debt is going to go up $5 trillion and raise the debt limit.
So that's, and even that is never in stone because they always change it.
They change budgets, they change debt limits, the whole thing, because they don't change philosophy on monetary policy and they don't change the policies on which requires money.
First of all, the most wasteful place they spend is in the military establishment.
The military industrial complex has a lot of power in Washington.
And they have tremendously successful lobbyists in Washington.
And it's one place that even Musk did not really touch at all.
Nobody talks about that except our friends who might lean toward libertarianism and constitutionalism.
Yes, yes, they say that we spend way too much in the military.
So there's a lot of things, Daniel, going on, and the markets are jumping.
And right now, they're saying that the follow-through from yesterday isn't going to be massive, immediate expansion of war.
And with this bridge incident going on, it might be orchestrated as symbolism as much as anything.
But the markets will let us know.
And they're very astute.
There's a lot of people involved.
That's one thing I think democracy works in a swift motion.
People, consensus, all of a sudden the markets shift, and you wouldn't have a stark market like this in an authoritarian communist state.
That wouldn't happen.
But this still has a market function.
And right now, you get lulls.
Today was a lull yesterday.
It was exciting, making up for the efforts in the past, the recent efforts, of not too much worrying about the dollar.
But there's a lot of people worrying about the dollar.
I don't see them changing the attitude about spending.
So I think the dollar is going to continue to be under attack.
You know, I think that number really resonates, should resonate with Americans having to borrow a billion dollars a day, not to pay down the debt, but to simply pay the interest on the debt.
You know, I mean, it really is literally like using one credit card to pay the minimum monthly payment on the second credit card and then returning and going to the next one over and over again.
I mean, this is a real issue.
This is real money.
And there's somebody who is concerned about it.
That person is someone we happen to know.
His name is Senator Rand Paul.
And he is everywhere on social media this morning because he went on CNBC and he basically said the emperor has no clothes in terms of the big, beautiful bill.
He said it raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, as you mentioned in your opening.
Let's listen to about a minute and 10 seconds of Senator Paul on CNBC this morning.
And you'll never guess what happened after he got off of this interview.
Minute 10 of this one.
Let's listen to.
Welcome back to Squat the Senate getting ready to start debating the House Pass Reconciliation Bill.
Our next guest says the math doesn't add up.
He's calling for changes.
Joining us right now is Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Good morning to you, Senator.
We were just talking to the president's son, in fact.
What would it take for you to support this bill?
Well, the main thing that I object to is raising the debt ceiling four or five trillion dollars.
That's an indication that we'll borrow that much.
It's an indication that we'll put the debt on the back burner.
We'll have no more discussion of it for a year or two.
And really, we're locked in a year right now where in March of this year, most of the Republicans, not me, voted to continue the Biden spending levels in March.
So we're operating under a continuing resolution, which originated as Biden spending levels.
You remember Republicans saying, Biden omics, Biden inflation, Biden this, Biden that?
Well, they voted for that in March.
So the deficit here at the end of the fiscal year and the end of September will be about $2.2 trillion.
I'm not for that, so I voted against the spending levels.
But now they want me to vote for $5 trillion worth increase in a debt ceiling, and I'm just not for that.
That's not conservative.
That's not conservative, said Senator Paul.
And so what happened to him, Dr. Paul, you're never going to guess.
Put on that first clip.
This is Bloomberg.
Right after that interview, the president was mad at Senator Paul.
Trump blasts Rand Paul as crazy for resisting tax cut bill over debt limit.
Now, let's have a look.
President Trump is known for getting really mad on his truth social account and saying things that really seem to not befit the office of the president.
Nevertheless, here's what the president said about Senator Paul.
Rand votes no on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas.
His ideas are actually crazy, losers.
The people of Kentucky can't stand him.
This is a big growth bill, to which I would say he's right, but not in the way he thinks.
Anyway, the second one, he said, Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, which is the big, beautiful bill, especially the tremendous growth that is coming.
He vows he loves voting no on everything.
He thinks it's good politics, but it's not.
The BBB is a winner.
Dr. Paul, your reaction to the big growth bill.
You know, the president doesn't have this quite right, to say the least.
But if he claims he's voting against anything, what does he want him to vote for?
The spending and all this other nonsense.
But he's not voting no on the principles of liberty.
He's voting yes on that.
What's he doing about the Constitution?
There's several others voting with him on a constitutional grounds, but there aren't that the majority aren't for this.
There are too many demagogues that are there.
And the number one thing that they are doing is protecting their seat.
They don't want to lose that.
The seat is so important to them that they're willing to do this.
So this is this idea, he's a negative person.
And I understand very well from a personal viewpoint that that gets thrown at you.
You're negative because, you know, sometimes not doing something is being very, very positive.
If you don't vote for, you know, raising the debt limit $5 trillion, maybe you are for something.
Maybe you're for a constitutional government.
Maybe you're against foreign interventions.
Maybe you're against these needless, illegal, unconstitutional wars.
But Trump doesn't seem to talk a whole lot about that.
Yeah, well, he talks.
But, you know, I listened to this entire interview, and there was one on Fox, and I think there was a third one on one of the Sunday shows about this.
And the thing that struck me, and we actually talked about it before the show, is that Senator Paul was very moderate in his criticism.
So the way President Trump makes it out to be, which is that Rand is in the corner stomping his feet, yelling no, no, no.
When in fact, if you listen to what Senator Paul said, he's very moderate.
He almost seems like he's bending over backwards to work with the president and his party to get the bill passed, maybe in a way that some others wouldn't have done.
But they pull this one part out, which is the significant part, raising the debt limit by $5 trillion and continuing the Biden spending.
And that's criticized as if he is just recalcitrant.
He refuses to play cards with the rest of them.
There just seems to be a disconnect between what he actually said and how it's being portrayed by the president.
See, they want to keep the doors open to the lobbyists.
And if you have a limit, that really puts a hindrance on the lobbyist lobbying committees.
And they're there endlessly and they're patrolling the halls.
But if something like this gets passed, I think they know it's not going to get passed.
You know, if they say that they respond, I'm rather cynical.
Yes, that's a step in the right direction.
But how many times did they say things?
And I think Rand points this out a lot of time, that they say, well, we just go to Cardo.
Well, why are you complaining?
We just, I'll vote to, you know, to raise, you know, cut the taxes and all.
It's some of them, but he says it's a fake.
It looks like you're cutting the budget.
It's outliers.
It's not this year.
The only budget you're living with is today.
It used to be you could always delay it.
And the saying was, you're just dumping the debt on our kids.
There's some truth to that.
But the truth is, is we dumped on current people.
And that's why that's what the inflation is all about.
They're currently suffering from this.
And I don't think, see, because they've been able to inflate and they're sophisticated, they can hold things in check, but that just makes the bubble bigger.
So they can't stop the liquidation of the debt.
They have to start over and quit spending.
And that is unacceptable politically.
And that's why people should assume that this is getting worse.
But does that mean that Rand's wasting his time and we're wasting our time?
No, I think people better be prepared because one of the things they have to do is prepare themselves for the problems that we have, but they ought to prepare themselves for understanding the policies because everything I think of in politics and economics, I see it as all positive, not a negative.
I'm against the government stealing from us.
Concerns About Political Transition 00:04:48
And that's what it is.
I'm against official counterfeiting.
And that's what the government does.
They get away with that.
If you counterfeit, I counterfeit, you know, and print up the money.
We're in big trouble.
So this is something I think that we're entering this phase.
We're in the midst of a phase of transition going for how we can paper it over to the point where financially and morally and theoretically and constitutionally, we can't keep doing this and people are starting to realize it.
Yeah.
Well, our good friend Tom Woods, he made a comment about President Trump's attack on Senator Paul that I think bears repeating here because he makes a very good point.
And I think the president would do well to listen to this point.
Put up that next clip because he reposted President Trump's condemnation of Senator Paul.
And here's what he had to say.
Rand defended Trump all through Russia Gate and in plenty of other cases when it was unfashionable to do so.
Normal person respond, response.
Thanks, Rand.
Now let's see if we can address your concerns.
Instead, we have, excuse me, of saying this, screw you, Rand, which is a good point.
You know, the president could have just picked up a phone and said, I hear you, Senator Paul.
understand your concerns.
Let's get together.
You can take it down now.
Let's get together and talk about these concerns.
You know, I know you've been a good friend.
You stood up for me every time you're possible.
As Tom says, when it's unfashionable to do so, you've stood up for me.
Let's have a talk and see if we can work something out here.
But instead, it's this kind of emotional, almost toddler reaction.
You know, and I think a lot of people, certainly I do it, I wonder about the intellectual mechanism that's going on in the president's brain because it doesn't, you know, it boils down to it's not practical.
There's nothing practical about it.
Unless you're going to tide things over and you get some, you know, psychological benefit that my big bill passed.
Well, is your big bill going to do any good?
Yeah.
Will it be carried out?
Because we're cutting like crazy and we've had this committee and we will just leave us alone and vote for our stuff because this is a big deal for us and it's a big deal for a lot of people, I'll tell you, who want this money flow to continue.
But the market is what they don't understand is the market is ultimately more powerful than all the politicians because you can run an empire and a military operation.
But if you think you can manufacture money endlessly, it finally stops.
And that's how all great empires have ended.
And we have an empire and it will end in a monetary collision.
And that's what they're trying to prevent.
And yet they're not doing a very good job at that.
They immediately say they're trying to condition the people.
You know, what they'll do is they'll say they're cutting back Social Security benefits.
And, you know, they'll scare the people.
They will never introduce a notion, could you do it gradually?
Yes, you could, but you won't.
So I always suggest that, but I don't expect him to do it.
Yeah.
Well, here's a flashback of another example of President Trump lashing out at someone who should be his ally, someone who's indicated he's more than happy to work with the president.
Put that next one on.
This is just a couple of weeks ago, Dr. Paul, May 20th.
If you remember when the big, beautiful bill was in the House, the question to President Trump when he was in the Capitol hanging out with Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, someone, some journalist said, Thomas Massey said this adds more deficit than Biden did.
Do you think he's correct?
President Trump.
I don't think Thomas Massey understands government.
I think he's a grandstander.
We don't even talk to him much.
He should be voted out of office.
That's the response.
Not to respond.
Does it add to the debt or the deficit?
No.
It's just he's a grandstander.
He's no good.
He doesn't understand government.
Yeah, it's a bit of frustration when you see this.
But I'm still optimistic that truth wins out in the end.
But how many people have to suffer?
Truth wins out in the wars, but how many people have to die before they say, you know, it was stupid going into Vietnam?
It was stupid to go in there and fighting in the Middle East and stupid to pick a fight with Iran.
On and on.
But they discover that finally and admit it, and then it ends.
And then they go on to the next fight.
Actual Video Evidence 00:05:48
They never quit.
And the thing is, I mean, this is not a condemnation of President Trump.
I mean, we both hope that he does well.
And I speak as someone who can sometimes have a short temper.
So I understand how that is.
I certainly, I'm not one without sin.
I can't cast the first stone.
Nevertheless, I'm not the president either, and I never want to be.
So I would just, I just wish that he would take a deep breath, maybe make a phone call, calm down a little bit before he blows up like this.
You know, the background to all this is why are the people so supportive?
Well, essentially, I see it as a type of brainwashing that Begins early in an individual's life and early in our history, you know, like 120 years ago, that whole educational system and the aggressiveness now of the, you know, Trump, I think, is honest in trying to straighten out some of our Department of Education and make it more local, which is very good.
But the union leaders that were so active during COVID, they are beside themselves.
And yet, the education should be so much different.
And I always marvel at the tremendous education that the founders of this country had.
And it was on their own.
It was very local, family-oriented, or church-oriented, or small groups.
But it did come from a federal government.
The federal government got involved and they've ruined education.
And that's why so many people are conditioned to accept this nonsense.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, let's do a little bit of foreign policy before we close out today.
And as you alluded to in your opening, Ukraine hit the Kerch Bridge for a third time.
Third time's a charm.
Well, not exactly.
Put that next clip up.
Ukraine strikes Kerch Bridge in Crimea with underwater explosives.
Now, when I first looked at this, now that says 7:45 a.m., but it wasn't 7:45 our time.
I can tell you.
I immediately sent it over to you, and I hadn't even read the whole article.
I just thought, uh-oh, this is big.
We should probably talk about it.
Well, it turns out it wasn't as big as it looked to be in the beginning.
They launched some sort of an underwater explosive device at the bridge.
It ended up actually hitting one of the protective barriers.
And we can actually, there is a video of what happened.
So why don't we?
I don't know that we need our earpieces in, but why don't we watch that first video of the actual explosion here?
Yeah, let's full screen this and you can actually see what happened.
It was a pretty big blast, but those are those round things are the protective layers that they have on the bridge.
Now, this is the Ukrainians bragging about blowing it up.
Apparently, traffic was halted for a short period of time and then resumed.
There was no structural damage to the bridge.
So it really seems like an extension of what we saw over the weekend, where there was a lot of very high-profile blasts.
We're talking about the drone attacks on the strategic bombers.
A lot of high-profile, big PR propaganda victories that ultimately will not translate to anything on the battlefield.
They will not change the trajectory of the war, but they will get the attention and they'll probably boost a little bit more morale into a very flagging Ukrainian side.
I don't know if this is possible, but it seems like the people who took the pictures was a participant in the propaganda.
Those were fantastic.
Maybe surveillance, though.
It could have been surveillance.
Yeah, that's true.
But maybe, who knows?
Who knows?
Who knows?
But they actually, now this was not, they also had a second wave of unmanned attacks on the bridge.
And this one was taken out.
Just for fun, let's look at it.
But I'm going to ask our friend.
No, no, not that.
The actual third video.
If you can mute the sound on that video, because there's some music on there that's slightly distracting and annoying.
But you might want to, I guess we don't even need our earpieces.
So this is how the Russians used a UAV to take out.
This is the second unmanned vehicle with explosives that's heading toward the Kerch Bridge.
Let's just watch it and see how it was taken out.
You can see it speeding toward the bridge here.
And this is, of course, the surveillance of the UAV.
It's pretty amazing to it's not done yet.
It's.
Uh, there it goes.
Takes it out.
Pretty amazing to see how warfare has evolved, dr Paul.
Um, but if you look at that last photograph that we have up, that last jpeg, someone pointed this out and I do not know, i'm not an expert i'll be the first one to say dr Paul, but someone pointed out uh, that red, uh rectangle to them.
They said that looks like a starlink um satellite.
If true uh, that could be embarrassing for the U.s.
Uh, if they're using these technologies to attack the Kurtz bridge, which is a civilian bridge, the Russian military no longer uses it to transport military equipment.
There's a rail line that goes around the long way rather than over the bridge, so a purely civilian target this would have been.
Just think if the Cold War, as it ended, would have progressed like it tried to at the beginning, and then it's, been undermined.
But uh, you know, a bridge like that could be so symbolic and heroic in the sense of bringing two cultures of two countries together.
If they only believed in a similar way of operating an economy, like voluntarism.
Symbolic Bridges and Voluntary Trade 00:02:20
Then also just think of how much oil and gas could be passed, you know, from from Russia over, but then then they always do it.
What if they lived up to their promises that yes, the cold war is over and there's no need for us to get close to the Russian borders and we're not going to get interfere in in border towns that are close to Russia and commit coups and throw out the leaders we think are too friendly to Russia?
If, if people had a sense of just decency and common sense instead of just profiteering and political power because there was so much available.
I mean that the combination of bridges that bridge is fantastic the longest bridge in Europe actually yeah, for people to uh, commute together, you know, back and forth.
And the oil, the oil was an opportunity, but everybody was arguing, who's oil?
Who's going to get to make the profits?
Yeah well, we got to get rid of a lot of Lindsey Grahams if we're going to have that kind of world.
You're thinking of more Thomas Massey's and Rand Paul's and less Lindsey Grahams for that to be the case.
But i'm going to close out and thank our viewers for watching the show again.
I'll remind you our ticket's going to go on sale this week for the august 16th RON PAUL Institute Dulles Virginia, NOT DC Dulles, Virginia conference.
This will be our ninth annual, with one break in 2020.
I think we can all guess why uh event.
It's going to be a great event.
We got some great speakers lined up already um, and I will hopefully I will preview or premiere uh, our theme, our logo uh, and etc.
Uh, certainly tomorrow or thursday, and get those tickets on sale.
So mark that off in your calendar, august 16th uh, and we're going to have a great time over to you, Dr Paul.
Very good.
Obviously, the market and the world is not too interested in what i'm saying about how we should operate uh, you know, between the countries.
But uh, it's not that complicated, because I see it as just one or two rules that you have to follow.
One would be just voluntarism, that two countries, two units, two people, just have an agreement between the two voluntarily.
And nobody's allowed to use force to say, oh, no, it's my oil and all this.
Well, work it out.
And that would be a way of doing this.
Drifting From Voluntary Cooperation 00:01:02
But not many people are willing to do that.
But it's been done.
You know, the relationship between the United States and Canada basically has been pretty good for a lot of years because I lived on the border up there and it wasn't a big event to, you know, walk across the bridge.
Matter of fact, there were times when I lived in San Antonio, I could walk across a bridge and go into Mexico, and there wasn't a big deal.
But because we have drifted so far from a system of government that even leans toward voluntarism and the rejection of violence to achieve our way, that it's so different now.
And as things get worse, as there's going to be more violence, but ultimately, every time we see something like this, I always want to rationalize and tell myself this will wake up a few more people and try to figure out exactly why this has happened and why we don't have more people who have authority to use a little bit of common sense.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection