All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
34:20
Slouching Toward WWIII With Guest Col Douglas Macgregor

Wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East, while US warships are circling Venezuela. Are we heading toward a major world war? Military historian, scholar, and decorated combat veteran Col. Douglas Macgregor joins today's Liberty Report to lend his insights.

|

Time Text
Glad to Have Douglas 00:03:20
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning into 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?
I'm doing well.
And today we have a very special guest.
We do, an old friend.
We've known him for a while.
We got him started off, you know.
He came to see us early on.
But we're delighted to be able to have work with this visitor than guest we have today, Douglas McGregor.
He's been to our conferences.
He, I believe, went to an early luncheon when we were just struggling.
So we are very pleased.
Douglas has been around a bit.
And what I like about him is he's independent-minded, which requires a little bit of challenge now and then.
And I think he'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
But anyway, Doug, glad to have you on our program today.
Yeah, it's good to be here.
I think in the future, I need to wear a different shirt, though.
I'm far too subdued for the Rock Paul show.
Yeah, I better think this over.
It's great.
It's like a double espresso.
Wonderful.
Do you want to welcome our guests there, Daniel?
Well, Doug, thanks so much for joining us.
We're grateful to have you on.
You got a couple standing ovations back last month at the RPI conference in D.C.
So you know, whenever you come to our events, you're among good friends.
So we're always happy to visit with you.
Of course, I listen to all of your interviews, as many as I can get, because there's always some great insights.
And we're very, very fortunate to have you joining us today.
So, Dr. Paul, you want to?
You know, I don't very often mention where our guests, exactly how old they are and exactly where they came from.
But our guest came from a very important area of the country.
He's from the same state where I'm from, but he was at the other end.
And that's almost like a different part of the world.
He's from Philadelphia, born in Philadelphia.
I don't know how long he stayed there, but of course I was born and raised at the other end in Pittsburgh.
But Doug has a lot of experience.
And like I say, I like the idea that he's independent-minded.
And he's annoyed some of the people that deserved annoying.
But we're real glad to have Doug here today.
And this whole thing that we've been working on is a different type of foreign policy.
We may not agree on every incident, but I think that what we agree on, and Doug will clarify it if not, clarifying that there's something wrong with our foreign policy.
And of course, we've narrowed it down.
I like to simplify it.
And I have a few questions for Doug on that, exactly what we're going to do.
But Doug, welcome to the program and tell us what you're up to.
Well, I guess I'm trying to do a lot of the same things that you've been trying to do for a long time.
And you've led the way.
And I think there are people like me who followed.
I've been trying very hard with a number of organizations to try and point Americans in the direction of a new foreign and defense policy that essentially takes the position that first we should be focused primarily on the Western Hemisphere.
Venezuela's Distracting Role 00:15:50
And secondly, that unless we are attacked ourselves, we have no business attacking anybody else.
So this, of course, is radical today.
You know, 100 years ago, everybody would have nodded vigorously in approval.
Today, everybody sort of reels back in shock and say, you mean we don't need to be all over the world in over 800 military bases.
And I try to tell people, no, things have actually changed.
And even more important, Dr. Paul, and you appreciate this as a physician, technology has changed.
So the things that we've done in the past, if you try to do them in the future, you really risk suicide.
And I'm talking about military interventions because the nature of military technology, space-based communications, the surveillance, all of these things together make the kinds of things that we've done in the past extremely dangerous now.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is to try and get people to understand that what happens inside the United States is absolutely far more important to us than anything beyond our borders.
And to focus people on law enforcement, the criticality of maintaining the law.
I get into arguments with people all the time about immigration and border security, and they're very uncomfortable with aspects of it.
And I keep trying to tell them, laws don't enforce themselves.
If you're not going to enforce your own law, you can't expect others to do so.
So we have to enforce our laws.
If we enforced our laws, quite frankly, this immigration crisis we have right now wouldn't even exist.
But that doesn't seem to come up for discussion.
And finally, the criticality of national cohesion.
You know, everything rests here on a foundation of an English language, Western Christian culture and civilization as its foundation.
And it's distressing to me that people have walked away from it or they don't seem to think it's important.
If you don't put all of those things together, you're not going to have the United States of America too much longer.
Very good.
Daniel.
Well, Doug, I'm going to jump right into some foreign policy things.
Venezuela would be the first one that I'm interested in in 2019.
As we all remember, there was a disastrous regime change attempt.
It's almost become comical now with Juan Guaido becoming almost a meme for the failure of U.S. regime change policy.
But as we've seen the last couple of weeks, Doug, we've got at least eight U.S. warships that I can count.
We've got F-35s, B-2s, B-52s.
We've got refueling aircraft there.
We've got a $50 million bounty on Maduro's head.
We've got an attack on a boat that was claimed was a drug-running boat, was blown up, and 11 people were killed.
What the heck is going on?
What is the game there?
And do you think anyone inside the Pentagon has a plan with what we're going to do with these 2,500 Marines, I believe, who are on these ships?
Well, I guess we can relax because President Trump reassured everyone in the world that we're not interested in regime change in Venezuela.
That's what he says.
Well, that's nice.
Then what are we doing is the question.
You're not going to do a lot with the force that's there.
You could be very destructive, but as far as intervening to change the natural order in Venezuela, forget it.
It's not going to happen.
I don't think you can easily remove the government unless you, Israeli style, are successful at killing everybody at the top.
It doesn't make any sense, to be frank with you.
First of all, Venezuela, contrary to popular belief, is not a major drug hub.
And most of the drugs that have come out of Venezuela actually came out of Colombia and were trans-shipped.
We do know that there are generals in the Venezuelan army who've lined their pockets, taking essentially bribes to let the drugs that come out of Colombia come out of Venezuela.
But there aren't very many.
The real issue, I think, for everybody is the oil and gas reserves.
But the oil and gas reserves that are really plentiful, probably the greatest in the world, are actually quite deep.
And we have the finest oil and gas technicians and engineers in the world.
So the real question is: if the Venezuelans are living in poverty and they want to improve themselves, why not go to Venezuela and make an offer to the president?
Say, look, we've got the best technicians and engineers in the world.
We'd like to help you.
But we also want first crack at purchasing your oil.
I know, by the way, we know who the generals are that are transshipping these drugs, and we can help you with that to put a stop to it.
But instead of taking that approach, we've said, no, we can't talk to Maduro.
He's unworthy of us.
He's not a good liberal Democrat.
Has never made any difference to anybody.
And so we've decided we're going to threaten him.
And in the process, we've engaged in what is an extrajudicial killing of people in a boat that allegedly were carrying drugs.
I mean, perhaps the drug or the boat had some drugs in it, in which case you could stop it.
You could search it and turn them over to law enforcement.
But we're not in our own waters.
These are international waters.
To take the decision to, in cavalier fashion, simply kill everybody aboard that boat on the assumption that these are drug pushers and they're on their way to the United States, I think, is unacceptable.
So we violated our own laws.
We haven't certainly set an example or a standard for the rest of the world by any means.
And the next question is, what are you doing with all these modern aircraft that were designed years ago to fight an enemy on the size and scale of the Soviet Union?
I don't know.
I don't see it going well.
It may be a distraction from the big problems we have at home with our economy.
Just about everything that Dr. Paul has talked about over several decades now is coming to roost inside the United States.
We've got serious problems.
This national sovereign debt is unsustainable.
It's unmanageable.
We're watching all sorts of schemes to deal with it.
Perhaps Venezuela is supposed to distract everybody from that.
But again, it just doesn't have any logical utility.
Now, a lot of people that know me said, oh, well, Doug, you've always said we should defend the Western Hemisphere.
Now we're dealing with it.
I don't see that we're defending anything down in Venezuela.
If we want to make millions of enemies in Central and Southern America, then I'm sure this is a good way to do it.
But otherwise, I don't see us profiting in any way, shape, or form from confronting Venezuela.
I think we're trying to compete with the Chinese who have an interest in that.
And we can do that.
This is our hemisphere.
We have all the tools, all the ability.
We can move in and do wonderful things for Venezuela and for ourselves.
But we got to get out of this business of trying to restructure Venezuelan society and government and everything else.
Right.
You know, you talked about us following our own rules, which is a pretty good idea.
And the credibility is lost if we don't do that.
But that's surely what happens.
But I recall probably the first week I ever was in Congress because I won a special election in 1976.
And very early on, I remember it was the first week or two, I had a debate on a radio program with a Democrat who was a chairman of one of the military committees.
And I really wasn't very expert at any of this, but I had a few basic principles that I was working on.
And one was at the time because we were just finishing up the Vietnam War and all that mess.
And so I started dwelling on the fact that, well, following our own rules, maybe we're not supposed to fight wars without a declaration, an endorsement from the people.
Maybe we know who the enemy is and what our goals are.
And he explained to me because he knew I was young and totally ignorant of all this and he was the expert.
He says, Ron, you're just missing the whole point.
There's never going to be another declaration of war because that's old-fashioned stuff and that's not the way we do things anymore.
And I thought, well, that's terrible.
That's terrible.
But that was very prophetic.
That is exactly what happened.
How do you use this necessity or the suggestion by the Constitution that we shouldn't be so involved without a full declaration?
There's so many things that seem to be necessary to do in the short run, but where do you draw this line?
Do you think that you should lean in the direction of that Democrat?
I said, no, we don't do that anymore.
We just work things out differently.
Or do you think there should be an emphasis and a worthwhile debate on whether or not the war is actually declared?
Well, it's interesting.
In 1976, I was getting ready in June of 76 to graduate from the military academy.
And in the previous three, four years that I was a cadet, we had instructors who were drawn almost universally from the regular army.
These were, in many cases, former graduates, but not all.
They'd been sent to graduate school, and then they were assigned to teach at West Point.
I went through the same process, which is why I ended up teaching there.
But the point is that virtually all of them, when they would talk to us, would make your points, Dr. Paul.
These men had all served in Vietnam.
Most had had at least one or two tours over there, some three.
They had been involved in combat.
They'd also been involved in a lot of these nation-building exercises.
And they all said the same thing over and over and over to us.
You know, Vietnam was obviously a terrible mistake.
It made no sense.
We never knew what we were supposed to do over there.
But then they would go on and they would say, there's one positive aspect to all of this.
This has been such a terrible experience.
It's killed so many people unnecessarily.
This is probably going to keep us from doing anything stupid like this again.
Virtually everybody said that, and they all pointed to the Constitution.
And they would emphasize to us when I was a cadet over and over and over again, the oath, which says, you know, I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over me.
That went on and on and on.
And of course, by definition, the Constitution says the president is limited to what he can do.
In fact, this instrument called the U.S. Marine Corps was developed as a very small force that would allow the president under exceptional circumstances for a limited period of time to use the Marines coming from a ship offshore to come ashore in order to influence something that he said was important.
But there was always the understanding that that was limited.
They would have to be withdrawn relatively quickly because there had been no quote-unquote debate.
Congress would not support anything more.
Dr. Paul has all turned out to be wrong.
I mean, unfortunately, the Democrat that you were talking about was absolutely right.
We'll never see another declaration of war.
And we have imputed to the presidency a degree of foresight, wisdom, understanding, and leadership that it doesn't deserve.
We've thrown all the sort of checks on presidential power under the proverbial bus.
I mean, I think the Congress is a rubber stamp at any given point in time for whatever the president wants to do.
And a former congressman once told Judge Napolitano, and I think the judge told me this privately, and then I think we discussed it publicly, Congress is never going to obstruct the president under any circumstances from doing everything, anything.
He said, now we'll wait.
If the president is successful, we'll cheer him.
If it fails, then we'll all start carping from the sidelines and blame him for everything that's wrong.
In other words, Congress has become a permanent fugitive from accountability.
Right.
You know, this subject came up again as we entered this century and entered the disaster that's going on in the Middle East.
And there, you know, there was a Vietnam syndrome, and Bush said we have to cancel that out.
It's the fact that we lost is the only thing.
And we still had the Hawks, maybe still of them around here.
The only problem with Vietnam is we didn't go and kill enough people and declare a victory.
So then we have this thing.
And they said, oh, okay, we did it.
We're victors.
We're victorious now.
Mission accomplished.
So we can all go back.
It's just so hypocritical.
And so the syndrome of not going to war because Vietnam embarrassed us that it did get canceled, but for the wrong reason.
Well, you know, Dr. Paul, I think the American electorate, certainly since the late 70s, early 80s, has been largely anesthetized.
It's as though the conversion of the armed forces to this volunteer force has provided the politicians in Washington with an instrument they can use at will.
And unless, as one pointed out to me, point blank, the congressman will remain nameless, but he was a Republican.
And he told me, this is before 2001.
He said, frankly, as long as we don't take three or four hundred casualties involving, say, 50 to 100 killed in one day, the probability is low that anyone will pay attention to what we do.
And that's our great strength now.
We have this volunteer force that you can move at will, do it whatever you like.
And in fact, you can bomb anybody you want because no one will ever see the carnage up close and understand what you've done.
What they'll see is lots of explosions on the ground, and they'll celebrate that as evidence for our greatness and effectiveness.
Right.
Daniel, excuse me, go ahead, finish that sentence.
Anyway, Daniel has a follow-up question.
I'm a little bit concerned that our time will run out.
This is such a good conversation.
And we know you have to go at the bottom of the aisle.
You've got another interview.
But I can't resist Doug asking you about something that everyone's talking about today, and that's the assassination of Charlie Kirk yesterday.
And there are a lot of speculation, and all we can do is speculate because we don't have any information.
But a few things we do know, he was the head of the largest conservative youth organization in the United States of America.
We've talked about on this show polls this year, certainly, that have shown the conservative youth in America turning against Israel.
We saw, we've cited a Pew poll, we've cited a Gallup poll lately.
Over the last couple of weeks and months, if you've been following Charlie Kirk, he's been questioning some things.
He used to be completely, reflexively, 100% pro-Israel.
He started to question some things that are not popular with the Israeli, with the pro-Israel people.
There was the AF Post, which is a, I believe, a pro-Trump site on X, was talking about how he went on Megan Kelly's show to talk about how they've been attacked in text messages calling him anti-Semitic for questioning things like the Epstein connection to Mossad and other things.
Assassination Shadows 00:05:09
We know that this assassination was an incredible shape, I'm not a gun expert, an incredible shot from 200 yards, an absolute perfect shot from what we could see in terms of killing someone.
Do you have any suspicions about who might have wanted to take Charlie Kirk out as he was turning in his views on world affairs?
Well, the first thing I'd mention is that we still do not know the details of the assassination attempt, is what people call it, against President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
We had this young man up on the roof who was caught with a weapon.
He was killed almost instantly as soon as the shots were fired at President Trump, even though he'd been identified for a long period of time.
And subsequently, his body was cremated.
Whatever was connected to him in terms of potential evidence has gone away or is missing or hasn't been examined.
I don't know.
But it's very clear that that young man did not fire those rounds at President Trump.
The round that nicked President Trump on one side of his face was fired by an expert.
And I say that without hesitation, because had that been a serious assassination attempt, the next round that would have been fired would have gone right through his temple.
So it looks like that was an attempt not to kill President Trump, but perhaps to warn him that if he were to stray from whatever policies he had promised everyone during his run for election, that he risked assassination.
I don't know, but that's speculation.
So we move now to what happened to Charlie Kirk.
And, you know, Charlie Kirk was a very nice human being, never threatened anybody.
And you're right, he did enjoy tremendous support from a very large base of young men and women in colleges and universities around the country.
And so he did have sway in certain areas.
There's no doubt about that.
And he had been apparently moving away from unconditional support for Israel because one of the reasons that he stopped talking to me fairly early on after 7 October was because I raised too many questions and then flat out said, I can't support mass murder and expulsion of people from homes where they've lived for a thousand years.
He began to change his tune.
Perhaps he was shown things that he hadn't seen before, and he finally came around to that.
Did someone decide to eliminate him for that reason?
That's eminently possible.
But very clearly, the shot that was taken was something only an astute professional, much like the one that shot at President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, could have taken.
And it's very frightening, but there's an old adage: you know, if you want to get to somebody badly enough, you're going to kill them.
Nobody can protect themselves if they have enemies that are professionals that really desperately want to take them out.
So, you know, I don't know.
It looks terrible.
It looks like the black hand of illicit influence.
Is it the same black hand that has the throat of the United States in its grasp, that is driving us into war and disaster in more than simply the Middle East?
It's also involved in this disaster in Ukraine that's killed one point close to 1.8 million Ukrainians, soldiers, that is.
I don't know, but it looks bad.
And at some point, you know, I think it was Shakespeare who wrote the truth will out.
I'm sure it will come out.
Look, we're still talking about the Kennedy assassination.
And increasingly, it looks as though our friend Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy, especially since they found the rifle he was supposedly using, which was an Italian-made rifle, standard issue in the Italian army during World War II.
And it's the worst rifle ever produced.
The Italian soldiers were eagerly dumping them at first opportunity and picking up German weapons in North Africa early on because the thing never shot straight.
So I think the Kennedy bit is still open for question.
We're still trying to figure out who killed RFK Jr.
I get the impression that we're now looking at 9-11 differently.
I'm waiting for some sort of dam to break and for the real truth to pour out.
And I'm sure there are a lot of people concerned about that.
I don't know precisely who they are, but I think I understand what they're worried about, and they should be worried, because when the truth comes out, it's going to be ugly.
You know, this is something that struck me is that the autopsies that could be helpful, you know, in two important cases, I think you've mentioned both of them, whether it was Kennedy or the assassin, potential assassin against Trump.
It's when the autopsies aren't done.
You know, once the body's gone in 24 hours, I don't believe, well, I don't believe much to begin with, but that sort of puts the stamp of disapproval of what are they hiding?
And it has to involve a lot of people.
Let Us Think 00:05:28
Anyway, we're not going to solve that, but I do want to ask another philosophic question because I like to understand how we do our thinkings and our changes, because I've certainly changed my opinion on some issues and always hopefully understanding things better.
But you certainly have had a career in the military that was quite a bit different than I might have proposed.
And you criticize the wars that you had to be involved in.
But what I'd like to know, because your ideas, and I compliment you on this, your ideas have shifted.
They seem to be different.
You seem to be more diplomatic in understanding, and you have a greater quality of information.
So was there an event, though, or a war or something that said, you know what?
I think we're really on the wrong path.
And I think also when you talk about empire, I just wonder whether you have that entered into, you know, some of your thinking about why we have to wake up.
Well, Dr. Paul, you know that the view from the bottom of any organization is very different from the view at the top.
And I think for me, what was really illuminating was my experience in 1991, because I and the troops that fought with me, we were at the very spear point of an offensive.
And we did our jobs well, and we discovered that we were vastly superior to the opponents standing across from us.
And there was really nothing to stop us from advancing to the Euphrates River, capturing whatever was still south of the river, and then ultimately, if necessary, going across the river into Baghdad to demand the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by some new group of generals or politicians or whatever that the UN could then come in and work with.
That was the thinking.
And I discovered there was no interest in that.
I discovered that they didn't really want to fight this to a conclusion.
Everyone was so surprised at how well we performed that they decided, well, we'll call it quits now and go home.
We've done enough.
Let's get out of here before something else bad happens.
I think that was because the generation at the top had been traumatized in Vietnam.
But I also saw a great deal of unwillingness to really do what people said they were going to do.
And that was the beginning.
And it became increasingly clear to me after that that we were up to something that was no good.
The next profound event for me was in the Balkans.
And it happened first with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
And I was trying to figure out what are we doing here.
This is not an area of American strategic interest.
Europeans can argue that they have an interest here, but certainly not the United States.
And clearly, the people with the most interest in the Balkans were the Russians, because historically they had liberated most of it from the Ottoman Turks.
And all of a sudden, we had decided that we were aligning ourselves with the Muslims, with the Islamists.
In fact, people like Osama bin Laden and others that we now regarded as lies in some great campaign to remove governments we didn't like in Belgrade and eventually that this would go all the way to Moscow.
And that was made clear to me again in Kosovo during the Kosovo campaign.
And I saw nothing good emerging from this because we go in, we distort the natural forces in the region.
And we don't want to do that.
And if we do, then we're stuck with trying to put things back together.
Then in 2003, 2002, this business in Iraq resumed.
And I was asked my opinion, what could happen and so forth.
And one of the things that was kind of good at that point is that the people that I was dealing with all agreed that whatever you did, you didn't want to occupy Iraq.
And I said, well, fine, if you're not going to occupy the place, that makes great sense.
It's not going to require occupation.
You keep the army intact or rapidly reconstituted, put in a new government and get out.
That was widely understood.
And then later on in May of 2003, after we dithered for more than a month in Baghdad, I learned that Paul Wolfowitz went over to the White House and together with Dick Shaney went in to see the president and said, we have a brilliant opportunity here, boss.
Iraq is even weaker than we thought.
We can now build a brand new liberal democratic Arab country that will be friendly to Israel.
Well, within a few months, I was no longer welcome in that circle.
And by the time it got to January of 2004, I put my papers in.
It was just a question of when do I leave?
I was looking for employment.
And so by June of 2004, I was out.
I think those events convinced me that people in Washington had an agenda that was remote, if not fundamentally disconnected with the interests of the American people, frankly.
And then secondly, that the military was now populated at all the senior levels with pure opportunists because they would say, my classmates would say this to me from West Point often, Doug, what's wrong with you?
National Conversation Call-In 00:02:59
You don't get it.
You know, why don't you get on board?
Why don't you do it?
You can make all this money.
And I would look at them and I say, you're right.
I don't get it because I can't get involved with this because I don't think it's the right thing for the American people.
There was no interest in that.
The interest is, look, this is the war we've got.
Let's make the most of it.
Let's make as much money as we can as a result of it.
And that's basically what I think has been going on now for at least 24 years.
Well, Doug, I know you're going to close down here, but Daniel, I think, has another comment.
Yeah, just, I know that you've got to go now, but we can't leave this conversation.
I'm good for another 10 minutes if you'll keep me.
Okay, well, I just want to give you the opportunity to talk about the national conversation.
That's an event that you're holding up here in Dallas.
If you can tell us a little bit about, here we go, here we have a graphic up there.
You and Judge Napolitano, two of our great friends, and a couple of other very intelligent people.
Tell us a little bit about what this whole project is about, if you can.
Well, right now, it's planned that on the 4th of October in the Frontier Flights Museum in Dallas, Texas, that I and Judge Napolitano and Natalie Brunel.
Natalie Brunel is really, I think, one of the brightest and most thoughtful financial analysts out there and has a great grasp of what we call cryptocurrency right now and where it could fit in in the future.
The three of us were going to take questions and answer them.
And the questions would range from finance to domestic issues such as enforcing law along the border, posse comitatas, you name it.
And then we have another lady.
Her name is Olga Ravazi, a very brilliant woman who is taught at the university level.
She's formulating the questions.
She'll ask us, we'll answer.
Then the idea is that the audience that'll be there, we think we're looking at about 300 people because we didn't want this to get so large we couldn't entertain discussions.
And they would have the opportunity to stand up and make their opinions known.
And they will also have the opportunity to ask questions.
So we decided we'll call this a national conversation because we really see no evidence that the Uniparty is going to take us away from anything that's happening.
They're all in bed together in Washington.
They're incapable of change.
And so we have to build the foundation for a new way forward, potentially a new party.
How do we start?
Well, it has to start from the bottom up.
We're not backed by billionaires that are saying, hey, I'm going to form a new party.
Join me if you like.
This is the answer.
We want to build from the bottom up and find out what Americans want.
So that's the genesis of the national conversation.
We'll see if it works.
It's an experiment.
We do have a link up on this show's notes so people can check that out if they click on in the description.
Hear Walter Jones' Transformation 00:01:31
You know, I always like to see and hear about people have a change of heart and improve their position.
One person that did this was a very good friend of mine, even before he changed his position on foreign policy, and that was Walter Jones.
And he was a delight.
And unfortunately, we lost him a year or two ago.
But he did.
It was a dramatic change.
And boy, he became a true believer.
So I love to hear stories like that.
And it also should encourage us for the work that you do, Doug, and that we try to do is very beneficial.
And I think that people win converts one person at a time, you know.
And that is why we stick with our conferences.
We don't get thousands of people out, but I think we get good people out.
And you've always been a good draw for us coming out and helping us.
I want to make sure you know we appreciate that very much.
And once again, thank you very much for being with us today.
Dr. Paul, there's one thing I would say that Thomas Paine was right when he wrote Common Sense in 1775.
He was right when he said time makes more converts than reason.
That's great.
Anyway, that's what's happening.
That's right.
Very good.
And thank you once again for helping us out at time and appearing on this program today.
Now, I would like to thank our viewers for tuning in.
Export Selection