All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
25:08
Can Tulsi Defeat The Deep State?

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard continues to uncover the machinations of the Intelligence Community, including its role in the Russia-gate hoax and even in the 2020 election. Is she our best hope to defeat the deep state? Also today: the federal government continues to dip its toes into the private sector, with talk of more "investments" in the military industry and even a takeover of Union Station. What happened to the free market?

|

Time Text
Raising Taxes and Tariffs 00:05:14
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?
Very busy trying to save the government money.
All right.
But nobody will listen.
So I want you to have a loud voice and tell them what they ought to be doing.
Of course, we've had a voice here.
I don't know whether it's loud, but it's pointed in one direction.
And occasionally it does some good.
But it's such a big problem doing a little good.
Nobody notices that.
But anyway, I want to start off with an issue about the deficit and what they're doing about it.
And then we want to make a few comments about our friend Tulsi because she looks like she's working.
She's earning her pay.
So we want to mention that.
But Graham Summers in the Zero Hedge today has an article, and he has spoken on this.
He's very consistent.
The single most important chart in the world is flashing, danger.
And the chart is that of debt.
Everybody knows about it.
Some people won't talk about it.
Some people deny it, but it still keeps marching on.
Like the revolution of the last election, we thought maybe they would just freeze it, not raise it.
But did you know that it's still going up under these conditions?
I'm shocked.
But anyway, Graham points out there is now $3.4 trillion in municipal debt, $1.20 in corporate debt, $20 trillion in household debt, $37 trillion in federal debt.
There's on the top of that is student debt and auto loans and goes on and on.
And what about the unsecured Social Security and things like that?
That is really debt.
But they say, oh, no, they own Treasury bills.
But anyway, I would think that would catch some of their attention.
But there is something alongside this that I had to find out about this because this is pretty neat.
This is how Trump may have solved America's fiscal dilemma.
All right.
It did.
I was looking for cut the spending, bring the troops home, protect our civil liberties, follow the Constitution.
No, it didn't say that.
It started by saying let's use some policy changes so that we don't have to raise taxes because people don't like taxes.
So what they're doing is shifting it to regulations where it's translated into consumption tax.
The tariff is an example of this.
We'll charge a tariff and those Chinese will have to pay all the bills.
You mean they don't pay this tariff?
Oh, no, the American consumer pays it.
You can't get the product into the country unless the consumer comes up and pays for this stuff.
So that is one of the gimmicks.
But they have some other things here that are supposed to generate enough income, and we wouldn't have to worry about that sticky old deficit all the time.
They would use tariffs, minority stakes, because they're taking stakes in these companies and becoming 10% owners.
And they say they're strictly regulated by the agreements they make.
And I thought, well, making an agreement with the government, only a certain part of it.
I mean, they have so much ability to interfere with corporate activity.
But we've complained about, I may mention it later, about how messy that whole thing is.
And this whole thing, another one, but I never gave it much thought, but they consider it a big deal and make a lot of money, help pay the debt, is fees to protect intellectual property.
And that's patents and new copyrights and this sort of thing adds up to a lot of money.
But it's also all these things that we're talking about goes back to a consumption tax.
So to say, well, we're not raising your tax level, but we'll just sneak it in.
It's sort of like how most taxes are paid with the inflation tax.
The middle class pays out because they get the rising prices.
And we know this also involves the fact that the solution that they use is just printing more money.
And yet they don't want to face up to this.
I guess it is a bit disappointing, but not totally surprising to me that not much has happened in the last six, eight months.
Because not that I questioned their intentions, they probably could explain what they intended to do.
But it's the fact that it's too big.
There's too much momentum.
They've given up too much on basic principles of monetary policy and foreign policy.
Momentum Lost, Policy Under Threat 00:15:21
So nobody should be shocked.
But we'll keep plugging away because we'll have to deal with it.
The country will deal with it.
And when that is, nobody knows.
And nobody knows whether they're going to let it go to total runaway inflation where the currency is totally destroyed.
Now, that is dangerous.
It's already dangerous right now because the wealth is not distributed evenly.
Poor people are getting poorer.
And we know that's the case.
And sometimes they get their stock bought out if their stock's going down.
Oh, well, we can buy up that stock.
So anyway, that remains on the board.
And probably everything we talk about is in some way related to that problem.
Yeah.
It is an ongoing problem.
Well, the other thing that the main thing we want to talk about, our big story today, is it is based on something that Hedge put up via Vigilant Fox, who was very active on X.
And really, I mean, I think after the departure of Elon Musk from the administration and from Doge, the real bright spot that's left in the administration, and we make a lot of criticisms of the administration, but the real bright spot left, I think, is Tulsi Gabbard.
She's the director of national intelligence.
And, you know, think about what a tough spot it would be in.
She's an outsider.
She doesn't have an Intel background.
She has a military background, but not an Intel background.
And she's going in to a position that is sort of nebulous in terms of its real power in D.C.
The DNI, at least on paper, looks like it has control over all the intelligence agencies.
But of course, de facto, it's a different thing.
It's a wilderness of mirrors, as the NSA was referred to in the past.
The whole intelligence community is a wilderness of mirrors.
You don't know where things are hidden or what things are being done.
But I think to this point, I think she's done a terrific job in uncovering some of the abuses of the secrecy.
Now, you could say it's self-serving because, yes, the things that she's uncovered have been beneficial to the administration.
That's understood.
However, just the fact that she's uncovering the corruption within the Intel community, the deep state, is, I think, a benefit to everyone, regardless.
So if you put on that first clip, this is something that came out.
Gabbard drops a burnback bombshell Intel community corruption worse than anyone thought.
Now, I do have a video that goes along with this that is Trump holding a cabinet meeting, I believe, where Tulsi Gabbard explains what she has and what she's uncovered.
Can queue up that first video, we can listen to the background of where this came from.
Yeah, let's go ahead and put that on.
And you've also found many bags of information.
I think they call them burn bags.
They're supposed to be burned and they didn't get burned, having to do with how corrupt the 2020 election was.
And when will that all come out?
Mr. President, I will be the first to brief you once we have that information collected.
But you're right, it's we are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes and random offices in these bags and in other areas, which again speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people and trying to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused really immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.
Great job.
Thank you.
We look forward to hearing you.
The public looks forward.
Thank you very much.
So there you have it.
She's finding all kinds of stuff that was supposed to be burned that thankfully hasn't.
Listening to her reminds me of when she was up for before the Senate to be approved.
She doesn't have any experience.
What does she know about this?
But it turns out the fact that she wasn't brainwashed, what if she had worked in the department for 10 or 15 years and really knew how to run the department?
I mean, that would have been a negative.
So I think what we need in government are more people that are intelligent enough and sincere enough and have firm beliefs about the role of government.
And one thing, make sure she doesn't have, or he or she doesn't have any brainwashing by having this so-called experience.
They want to exclude her because she didn't have the experience.
And now she's coming out with a clean slate and doing a great job.
Well, you remember back in the 2020 elections, anyone at that time who questioned the legitimacy of those elections was canceled.
And we were careful what we said on our show because, of course, we didn't want to lose.
We have to tell the truth, but we didn't want to lose our channel either.
And so we had to sort of speak in this kind of Soviet language and not discuss it.
Well, now we have things come out about that, some things that our own intelligence community did.
And I think we both share the suspicion that there was something of a kind of color revolution like the intelligence community does overseas with other countries, that somehow they did something here in 2020 to have that color revolution.
If that stuff comes out, again, it'll be like COVID.
Like you say, with COVID, all the stuff you weren't allowed to say actually turns out to be the truth about these things.
Yes, and fortunately, right now, it looks like her job is probably secure.
But her appeal, I mean, she has to satisfy her boss, but who can do anything he wants.
But I think when public opinion favors her, I haven't heard any polling on her, but I'll bet she gets some, well, she was a Democrat and she was a progressive, and that's how she made a name.
She was different in her Democratic primary.
That was how she was established.
So I think she picked up support that way.
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, it is, again, I mean, it's very difficult for someone in her position.
And I'm sure, I mean, even someone like Radcliffe, who's the head of the CIA, I'm sure he's not telling her everything.
He is a product of that deep state.
I think he's part of that deep state.
But, you know, when you mention people like Brennan and the others who really clearly did some very evil things and they use their position as head.
Well, it's been throughout history.
You go back to the JFK administration and how those, the Dulles brothers, used the secret aspect of the U.S. government to conduct, as you point out, a coup against America.
And the fact is, even though we've seen revelations such as the Church Commission hearings in the 70s, we've seen what they do.
We haven't really seen significant reforms in how they do things.
And so I think there's a unique and valuable job that Tulsi can provide for America.
I hope she has some allies, and I hope someone has her back because it's a pretty dangerous position to be in.
That's for sure.
So I think we'll be hearing more from her because her job is probably going to be endless.
When I think of the problems, how embedded things are, when you look at the judicial system, changing one judge here and one judge there doesn't reverse 100 years of organized propaganda through our universities and the destruction of the understanding of the Constitution.
So the job is overwhelming.
So it's a delight.
And I think the people recognize that because when a person speaks the truth, people recognize it.
And I think it's a real shame what they've done to Thomas.
Yeah.
You know, because he is, and he's been able to maintain under dire circumstances his seat in Congress.
Yeah, yeah.
And let's hope he maintains that.
There are people backing him up.
Even Elon Musk said he's going to contribute to Thomas's campaign, to Massey's campaign.
So that's good news.
Well, the other thing we wanted to talk about a little bit today is kind of a follow-up on yesterday where we talked about that 10% stake in Intel that the U.S. government took.
Well, this kind of is kind of like a metastatizing tumor because it seems to be spreading further.
Go to this next one.
Now, there are several articles that are talking about it, but everyone necessarily is talking about the Trump administration considers taking stakes in major U.S. weapons firm.
Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick says Lockheed Martin is already essentially an arm of the U.S. government.
Well, that's true, but it's not in exactly the way he means it.
So what he said is that the Trump administration is considering taking stakes in major U.S. weapons firms.
Comments came after the U.S. acquired 10% of U.S. chip giant Intel.
And here's what Lutnick says: Oh, there's a monstrous discussion about defense, he said in an interview with the administration was considering taking pieces of these firms such as Boeing, Palantir, and Lockheed Martin.
I don't know, Dr. Paul, that does not sound like a great idea to me.
I don't like the trend.
And when this was first announced, I tell that this is what could happen.
But, you know, it's interesting what the answer is to smooth this out.
Is that, oh, we've done a lot of that already.
You know, and they don't mention, yeah, we have agreements and we share power and money and all this.
But I think this is different.
And some of the articles we read said, this is unique.
What they're doing here is unique and different than, you know, a closer association.
But the close association and the appropriation process and the way our government works, I mean, I think that there's a name for it.
But people, the people who argue, I guess, I say, well, we don't have socialism.
And I agree with them.
They don't have pure socialism.
They don't take it.
But this is a step where they're claiming ownership.
Oh, yeah.
But the rules are written that they will have no real clout about it.
They'll be restrained and they can always be held accountable.
But who's going to believe that stuff?
I mean, what if Trump really delivered on its promise to deliver peace?
We're not at war anymore, but the U.S. government is invested across the board in the military-industrial complex.
And these companies start losing money because there are no more wars.
What's going to happen?
They're going to gin something up.
I mean, the incentive there is very, very dangerous, I think.
So they needed to work a system where other countries would contribute money because it's getting difficult for us.
I just read what kind of debt we're in.
But they did this and they don't have enough money.
So, well, we don't believe in NATO, but we think they should pay more.
But how about this gimmick?
I mean, our companies have to be saved.
We might have a world war in 2,000 years from now.
And we need to have a much stronger military.
So we should build more and more World War II airplanes that don't work.
That sort of thing.
So I think it doesn't work at all.
And now they're saying, well, we're going to spend a billion dollars a month to buy weapons to continue the fighting in Ukraine.
We're on the verge of victory for whom?
Not for the American taxpayer.
But they want a billion dollars.
Guess what the gimmick is?
Oh, all those people will put in their share, put it into kitty with the one condition, they have to buy American weapons.
What if somebody can sell it for half price?
Oh, you couldn't possibly do that.
We're into it more than just fighting wars, you know.
You've long criticized the way the military-industrial complex operates in the U.S. because you have these sort of quasi-private companies.
They socialize the costs and then they privatize the profits.
You know, it's from what I understand, Russia is different because their military-industrial sector is owned by the state.
I think I could be wrong, but I think an argument could be made to, if you're going to do a takeover, take it over, redefine what our policy is.
It's only a defensive policy.
We don't want to have a global military empire.
If you get that all solved and then you can produce the weapons that you think you need to defend this country, I think you can almost make an argument to have maybe even more government control.
But this is sort of a hybrid.
This really underscores the hybrid nature of the relationship between the state.
You know, they haven't talked much about the motivation.
Why did they peak on this company at this particular time?
They never mentioned it is in financial trouble.
Maybe this is a new method of bailing out companies.
Too big to fail.
But the other way is actually more secretive because when you have an economic crisis, what they do is they get the loans, the loans, and then you never can audit and find out who got what.
In this case, they're putting out, oh, we're going to put a stake in these companies, you know, and we'll be partners, but we won't have any power.
But we have so much power over them already.
So this whole idea that, yeah, we're going to own it.
If they have 10% now of Intel, maybe next month they might do 20%.
But they don't say, nobody in the establishment would say, well, this was necessary.
The company's a big company.
They have a lot of employees.
We want to protect the profits of the stockholders.
And this is a bailout.
But maybe that's not true, but I'm suspicious.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, this trend is continuing and it's worrisome.
Now, I got the order wrong.
If you can go to that very last clip, this is uploaded too slowly, and so it got stuck at the end.
But something else happened today.
Trump seizes DC's Union station as takeover of Washington expands.
Now, we've already seen National Guard troops throughout the streets in D.C.
And on one hand, of course, you know, you can't help but being a little bit sympathetic because the place was a sewer and it was crime-ridden.
But here you have them taking over Union Station.
And if you go back to, I think, three clips, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Wednesday, which is today, that his department is taking management of Union Station.
the main transportation hub in Washington away from Amtrak.
And another example of how the federal government is exerting its power over the nation's capital.
So they're taking over Union Station, which I remember in the old days was a really lovely place to be, but apparently it's not anymore.
Yeah, and that one, I haven't thought that through yet.
What in thunder do they expect to benefit from this?
Taking Over Union Station 00:04:32
This is almost a symbolic action.
We're the boss and we're going to run the show.
But I have no idea why they have to do that.
But there's so much.
I don't understand why they have to do so many things because it has very little to do with taking care of the American people and protecting their freedoms.
Yeah, there's a little bit of irony in this as well, actually.
If you go to that next clip, so Duffy made the announcement in a statement before he was to join Amtrak President Roger Harris at Union Station for a lunch of the, for the launch, sorry, of the next-gen Axela, the rail service's new high-speed train.
The secretary said Union Station, located within walking distance of the U.S. Capitol, had fallen into disrepair when it should be a point of pride for the city.
Now, the irony here, Dr. Paul, is Union Station started to die when President Trump, number one, shut the country down for COVID.
That's when people stopped going and all the businesses failed.
So in a way, he's sort of the reason this problem happened.
You know, he's sort of the arsonist who now wants to be, you know, to fight the fire that he created.
Yeah.
But the result, I don't think it's going to improve things.
I think it's just monkeying around.
It's a show of authority and symbolically they must see we see it symbolically of something negative, but other people will see this as symbolic.
You know, one thing is going to be a mixed blessing, and it's already started.
And the end is, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but the crime rate's down in Washington, D.C.
We should all be pleased with that.
But if you send in the Army, well, Washington, D.C. is a little bit different.
It's a federal city.
So it might not be the best place to argue.
But the politicians are going to argue.
They'd say that it truly is a safer city.
We need more troops.
And they're talking about more troops.
They're talking about Chicago and Baltimore.
But they're, you know, in a way, they're federal cities already because it's all run by far left.
I've told the story before, but I remember when I was in Albania in 96 during the Civil War, and they had troops surrounding all of the government ministries.
And I thought, you know, I think God, I come from a country where we don't have our military on the streets of the capital.
But now it's almost normalized to have that sort of thing.
Right.
Yeah.
So, well, I'm going to close out today.
I'm going to thank everyone for looking at the show today.
I don't have anything to hawk today.
There's no tickets for sale yet.
Hopefully we'll do another conference again soon.
Maybe even in the fall, if you guys think it might be a good idea.
But while you're watching the show, please hit that thumbs up or like.
Please subscribe to our channels.
Please share Dr. Paul's message as you see it on this show with your friends and relatives and even your adversaries.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Of course.
I want to just re-emphasize what I said or tried to make the point on the opening statement how serious the debt is and that it's not hard to come up with $100 trillion of debt in a media sense, but it's not much bigger than that.
And yet people are not concerned to the point where they're going to really put their foot down because even now with the effort made, sincere effort made in the last eight months, when the people heard, oh, you mean you're going to cut this, you know, there's a certain segment, it got very, very noisy.
They don't really want it, you know, if it involves what they're doing.
So it looks like we're on course for it ending in a very, very negative manner, and that is a collapse of the system.
And that is why it's important, I think, to think about the future and think about the strategy of the Marxists because they like chaos and they have gotten their chaos.
Some people are reacting against it, and that's good.
But out of chaos, you have to have a new system.
And that's why it's so important that we get another generation as quickly as possible to understand exactly why you should have sound money, personal liberty, follow the Constitution, stay out of these wars.
And that is the only way that I can see that we can advance the cause of personal liberty.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection