All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 29, 2025 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:12
The 'War On Narco Terrorism' Is The New 'War On Terrorism' And Will End Just As Badly

The new US "war on narco-terrorism" in Latin America will enrich the coffers of the military-industrial complex and will create much death and destruction in the countries the US government decides to "liberate," but in the end the result will be failure...and that's just fine with the neocons. Also today: US Ambassador to NATO says $2 billion more in weapons in the pipeline for Ukraine,

|

Time Text
Drug Wars Brewing in Latin America 00:13:26
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?
Doing well.
Thank you.
Good.
Excellent.
Well, we want to talk about drug wars.
There's drug wars spreading.
It's an epidemic.
What are we going to do?
Pretty soon, everybody will be smoking cigarettes, and everybody is going to drink alcohol, and everybody will drink or smoke marijuana.
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about serious drug wars and the kind of thing that upsets our government because we hear, or at least the people in the administration, claim they hear that the Venezuelans are really at fault.
So we're taking care of them.
They're surrounded.
We've captured them.
And our military is there all ready to go.
And if necessary, if they don't listen to us, they're going to be in big trouble.
But, you know, I wonder about what's going on in Brazil.
You know, similarity, Brazil is a big country.
Yes.
And we're picking a fight with them now.
The State Department is stating that there's a cartel in Venezuela that is connected to the Venezuela cartels.
That's big news and a real threat to the United States.
Our State Department said that.
So we better start worrying about that.
We better forget about our deficit.
It looks like they have because this is getting to be serious.
But this is, again, a force.
What in thunder are we doing down there now?
You know, I sort of first thought I had was, you know, they wanted to promote militarism in the States and use troops.
And they have already.
And they're probably in, well, the cities are blowing up.
And even if they didn't invite us, we still have to go.
We have to take over because our job is to make the country safe and secure.
And it's all that drug cartel and they're making a lot of money.
So we're obligated to go in.
So it's already a good idea.
They've established the principle in the United States.
So when I saw this by Brazil, I thought, well, holy man, what if some clown in Washington decides that it's our obligation to be the world policeman?
You know, that's happened before.
So if they do, that means this is just an opening salvo.
And I can't imagine it happening, but it looks like it could happen.
So when I saw this, I thought, you know, what if they adapt the principle that they're in charge of the war war, the war, you know, drug on wars, and they have to go into the States because it causes chaos.
That's happening in Brazil.
Don't we have an obligation there?
And I never dreamed I'd find out that they're already precipitating stuff.
I mean, of course, we've been involved in what, hundred, over 100 countries, always planning and always scheming and already participated in many, many a coup.
And the most recent coup disaster has been the Ukraine.
And that's still a mess.
But here it is.
It's stirring trouble.
Maybe this will be over tomorrow and we won't be thinking along these terms.
And maybe the State Department will be quiet and not say, oh, what's going on down here?
And, you know, we better watch this.
Or this is our opportunity because we actually stirred up this trouble down there.
Who actually started the riots and the fighting in Brazil?
And I don't know the details of that, but I'm suspicious that it's not healthy.
Well, you remember, Dr. Paul, back when they were pushing the war on terror, the U.S. was going to go into Iraq, and it was going to liberate Iraq.
But after that, remember, the whole thing was about we're going to transform the whole Middle East.
We're going to transform it into new democracies.
People will be wealthy and happy, and everything will be fantastic.
Well, that didn't happen, but that was the rationale.
I really feel that there are a lot of parallels now with what they're trying to do in Latin America.
Because if you think about it, this is exactly what the U.S. is promising.
The attacks on Venezuela on the boats, the threats to actually physically invade the country are there.
And we're seeing it's under the same auspices.
And I would say with Latin America, at the center of this war is the fear that BRICS will spread.
I think that's the reason why the U.S. has so solidly embraced Millay in Argentina to the tune of a $40 billion bailout.
And Trump said specifically, if you Argentinians do not vote for his party in the elections, we'll take the money back.
You're not going to get it.
So they voted for it.
Pure election interfering.
They want Millay in there because Millay will do their bidding in foreign policy.
He's already expressed that he will be a good understudy to the U.S. for foreign policy.
So now you have Venezuela, the attack on Venezuela.
Well, Venezuela has tried to join BRICS.
There have been some technical problems, but they have expressed last year aspirations to join BRICS.
And Brazil itself is the B in BRICS.
So I think a lot of this has to do with the U.S. war on BRICS, the fear of an alternative developing, alternative poll developing the global south, they would call it.
So that, I think, is a backdrop to what's happening.
If you put this first one up, now this is the article we're talking about.
How does it all fit in?
Well, the war on terrorism is now the war on narcoterrorism.
Same thing.
So Rio de Janeiro outskirts erupt into chaos.
Major narcoterrorism crackdown turns the area into a war zone.
You say, well, hold on.
Isn't Lula the leftist leader of Brazil who the U.S. hates, the U.S. Trump administration hates?
Well, he's cracking down on drugs.
Doesn't he get some credit for that?
Go to the next one.
Here is the governor of that region that they are cracking down on.
He says, we have 2,500 civil and military police officers on the streets executing dozens of warrants, confronting head-on the thugs that they try to challenge the state.
I asked the residents of the region to remain at home while the security forces are acting.
Now you would say, well, the U.S. should actually be pretty happy about this.
Well, Dr. Paul, that's not the case, actually.
And if you go to that next one, this is a post from X that was in the article that Zero Hedge put up.
And this is how I see it playing out, Dr. Paul.
This is a Rafael Fontana is an author and a journalist.
He is a suspicious character.
I'll put it that way.
I won't say more than that.
The type of people that emerge and write things when they're needed.
Anyway, he posted, he said, he tagged the State Department and said, to whom it may concern, these are the narco-terrorists shooting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The cartel known as CV is connected to Venezuela cartel.
That's what you just said, Dr. Paul.
A real threat to the U.S.
So they're going to conflate these two, I think, the narco-terrorists in Brazil, who the U.S. wants to overthrow, and the quote-unquote narroterrorist in Venezuela, who the U.S. wants to overthrow.
I see sort of a big, big thing emerging here.
You know, they always stay prepared, the military-industrial complex, the neocons, because you'd think they'd have enough to do, and they would realize that you can't spend this kind of money forever.
So what would happen to them if Venezuela just melts away and is no longer a problem?
What would happen if Ukraine, there was a peace treaty signed that was an honest peace treaty and we didn't have to send any more money there or waste more money or steal more money for more of the profiteers making the money off weaponry.
And then what about the Middle East?
I mean, there's what if there's peace there?
They would run out of things, but they're always prepared.
So they say, well, we could handle and we might be able to do Venezuela in one day or two because that'll be an easy one.
So we better have something else going.
And so we still meddle with Colbombia.
We meddle in all these places.
It's amazing what the people there put up with.
But I believe right now what they're doing is another source.
And just what motivates them, it just astounds me.
Sometimes when I read what they do and I say, well, we want to accomplish this and they have all these wonderful goals.
I said, maybe they actually believe it, which is trying to find an excuse for them being, have such an idiotic foreign policy.
But I think they do believe it.
George H.W. Bush, he probably believed that stuff, but then he realized, oh, my bragging, it's going to look really crazy in a few years.
What are the history books going to say?
And once people start bragging, to me, that's a sign of real weakness.
That's a sign that your policy doesn't speak for itself.
But when the leaders have to brag about stuff, I think that indicates that it's not obviously clear to everybody exactly what they're doing and what their intentions are.
Absolutely.
And I think this is what we're seeing.
I think there's a three-step plan in Brazil and elsewhere.
First of all, you have to establish they have a narco-terrorism problem.
And then you will accuse the government of not going strong enough against the narco-terrorists.
And then the third stage will be accuse the government of being in cahoots with the narco-terrorists.
And then boom, the door is open for U.S. intervention.
Now, we're seeing some of this.
Now, one of the things that you do want to get on board are the NGOs, all of these murky organizations that will reinforce the government narrative.
And if you go to that next one, you'll see it here, Cartel Watch.
I could not find anything about this organization.
It may be just one guy in a computer.
They do have a website.
I couldn't find anything out about their funding, which makes me a little bit suspicious.
But they posted on X, Rio de Janeiro is under a state of terror.
The Commando Vermello, CV gang, has enforced a citywide lockdown in retaliation for police operations targeting crime in that state.
So you could say, well, that's the government going against it.
They're establishing, in my opinion, the number one thing, which is that they have a problem.
Next, they're going to say they're not fighting it.
And third, they're going to say they're in on it.
I think that's what we're seeing here.
The U.S. wants to overthrow Lula.
And President Trump has made no, has not been shy about expressing his affection for the previous right-wing president, Bolsonaro, in Brazil.
And I'm sure he'd like to see him back in power.
So often when these events occur, we, you know, agitate and try to figure out what, why are they having us think about these things?
Are they just preparing us for what is necessary to save everybody and provide safety and security for them?
Or they actually believe that this is necessary or are they misled?
And I think, well, you know, I think when the propagandas get involved, it does shift.
We know the people who are in leadership in the deep state who agitate for war and all the shenanigans that go on, they actually are waiting for a chance to carry this stuff.
And that to me looks like where the real danger is.
And there will be something else because they will not have control of it.
They can't.
They do it for a while.
And they finally have to give up for various reasons.
I mean, just think of the major things that we've been involved in, especially since World War II.
I mean, think of how many times we've been, how many people have died, how much money is spent.
And, you know, mission accomplished.
Well, the mission has not yet been accomplished, and they're still believing that it will.
And they have to convince the electorate that it is so they don't repair.
Because if the people wake up, I think I marvel right now what's going on.
This is a different subject, but what they're doing in advertising, when they change advertisements to a more liberal, progressive, silly stuff, and the customers, the consumers are offended by it.
And they bring these, they make the companies change their tune.
I think that is just great because if they think they can go to Washington and get their way, they won't do it.
But this is the way, you know, that prevailing attitudes have an effect on.
They make them change policy.
But the big deal is at times the people in charge don't like that and they're already at it.
They regulate speech.
So they don't want people who are waking them up to be able to go out and tell the truth.
That's when the trouble really starts and people get upset.
Prevailing Attitudes Shape Policy 00:04:36
But sometimes it's successful in the short run.
And I think we can look at some of the successes where the people spoke out and companies were forced to change their attitudes.
Yeah, I really, you mentioned waking up.
I think Americans need to wake up now because I think a major war is brewing in that part of the world, in Latin America.
And I think, I mean, think about the propaganda value.
Most Americans know there's a problem with narcotics in the U.S. You see people in the streets with the fentanyl.
It looks like a war zone.
It's horrible.
So you already have the sympathy of most Americans, just like back in the early 2000s, because of propaganda, most Americans were very suspicious about the Middle East.
These were suspicious terrorist type of characters.
We need to go in there and take care of business.
I think they're softening Americans up to accept this idea already.
Now, they're starting with Venezuela.
And in fact, I was on X and I found a clip from Stephen Miller.
We've talked about him before.
He has the presidency here.
He's the deputy chief of staff in the White House.
He is a hardcore neocon, full stop.
And he's all in on this.
If you go, no, no, no, it's not, it's not, it's the next, it's the next JPEG, actually.
There we go.
So here's Stephen Miller, just a few days ago, establishing again.
This is about Venezuela, but here's what he said.
Maduro is responsible not only for drug trafficking, but also human trafficking and terrorism, Miller says, claiming that Venezuela is a central node of a network that includes criminal groups that must be eliminated like ISIS.
They are absolutely, absolutely making the connection between ISIS and this network.
They want a bigger war.
And they already have someone in Venezuela waiting in the wings.
If you put the next one on, it happens to be the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who has come out and said she thinks it's a great idea that Trump is blowing up boats.
How's that for a peace activist?
It's a great idea that they're blowing up boats.
There's only one problem, Dr. Paul, and that's the fact that the truth does not conform to the narrative that's being put out.
If you look at the next one, the counterpunch, and this is just one of many, many, that makes an interesting point.
Now, check this out, Dr. Paul.
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration's National Drug Threat Assessment of 2024 does not even mention Venezuela.
Just last year, the DEA, when they're looking at the drug threat problem in the world, don't even mention Venezuela.
And a classified National Intelligence Council report established that Maduro did not control any drug trafficking organization.
So they're having to create a narrative out of thin air, just like they did again in Iraq about WMDs.
I think all this preparation for war goes through precise steps.
And I think it starts off with the distortion of the truth in order to galvanize the people to say, you know, this is what's really happening.
You better be careful.
And they have to be feel threatened.
And they work on that.
You know, the drug war, you've got to stop that.
Fentanyl is going to consume half of the population within six years or two days.
And then also, once they stir it up and they feel threatened, and then the people start to wake up, what do they resort to then?
And that is the cancellation of the First Amendment.
And that's where we are right now.
It starts off with fibbing and lying and distortion for wonderful good reasons and actually trying to get the people scared to death.
You know, just to remember all the propaganda when they were scaring the American population about why we had to go into have the George Middle East war get that started?
Yeah.
I mean, people, people can't deny it.
And they have a hard time sorting it out.
And now when it gets out of hand and our side of the argument wins, where we weren't warning the people, then all of a sudden, the people who are most effective, you know, they're canceled by some type of restraint on their freedom to speak.
And that's why back at the time in the early 2000s, when you knew what was happening and you were against it, and you voted against the war and you spoke out constantly against this narrative that they were saying, and then, of course, they did it anyway, and it went bad.
Ambassador Whitaker's Fall 00:11:08
And what did they say a few years later?
It's a few years later.
Oh, Ron, how could we have known?
Well, could listen to you.
Listen to me.
You know, that you were right about it.
And it's the same thing now.
It's very popular right now.
At least it appears very popular.
Yeah, blow them up, blow them up, take them out.
That's exactly what we heard in the early 2000s.
That's right.
And that's what we have to address and not assume that there's one person in charge.
They always have a puppet.
Zelensky, he's not the brains behind what's going on there since 2014.
Wonder what he was doing in 2014.
Any idea?
He was an actor.
He was a comedic actor.
He played a president in a fictional comedy in Ukraine.
And now it's this thing.
Oh, that's scary.
Well, speaking of Ukraine, this is the thing.
I mean, this is a sad thing that I really don't want to have to mention and report, but I really do think that the neocons have completely captured Trump.
And here is his ambassador, the fellow on the right.
He is the U.S. ambassador to NATO.
I think Whitaker is his name, Ambassador Whitaker.
Now, here's what he said.
People who voted for MAGA, people who voted for getting out of these wars are going to be angry, hopefully.
They should be.
U.S.-NATO ambassador, Ukraine will receive $2 billion in U.S. weapons in the coming months.
That is not how you end wars.
And I'll go to the next one.
This is the Libertarian Institute, by the way, Kyle Anzalone.
The U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Alliance urged Russia to end the war in Ukraine, claiming that President Donald Trump, quote, has more cards to play.
Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said Trump could impose new sanctions on Russia and that $2 billion in weapons would arrive in Ukraine in the coming months.
And here he's talking to Bloomberg.
Right now, we have set up a system where the commitments kind of are rolling forward.
You know, we probably have another $2 billion or more to bring in in the next several months.
And we fully expect that will be done here very soon.
We have a foreign minister's meeting in December, which will most likely kind of top that off.
So there they go.
Boom.
More money, more weapons.
Now they'll say, well, it's not our money.
It's NATO's money that's buying it.
Okay.
Who funds NATO?
But here you go.
This guy's obviously a neocon, and he's saying we're going to send more weapons.
We're going to do exactly what the Biden administration did.
But that's just the opening the door.
And there's blunts.
Even in that same article, it said that Whitaker was saying he can.
And then as, oh, I guess this represents what the Ukrainians were saying.
And then as we get into the 2026, the key is sustainment.
The key is the real tricky $12 to $15 billion that are needed to buy the critical armaments needed by Ukraine to defend themselves and to continue this fight at the front line is going to be raised.
The front line, that means they're going to take over Moscow.
And it's going to be, well, it's going to be U.S. weapons.
He's realistic at least.
So they're spending $120 billion a year already, and it's just going to go up.
This is really a bit of political insanity.
Because what are they going to say?
You know, we're vulnerable at this very moment.
And there's the Fed's meeting this week.
They might say something stupid, more stupid than usual, and precipitate an adjustment.
An adjustment is necessary.
So they're going to lower interest rates, but the market rates of interest are actually going up today.
At the same time, they're going to lower interest rates, and Trump will say, I win, I win.
They're doing what I stole them.
They should have done.
And if it doesn't work, he says, you're too late.
You didn't do it when I told you.
But that goes on, but it's a lot of money and a lot of mess and a lot of lives.
It's all preventable if they would just go back to school, cancel out their degree from most of the universities, well, the thing that's happening is that Trump has now surrounded himself with absolute neocons.
You've got this Whitaker fellow.
You've got Rubio.
You've got Kellogg.
And all of these neocon liars are telling him that Russia is on the verge of collapse.
And here's Whitaker himself.
If you put that next one up, U.S. ambassador to NATO also touted the recent sanctions Trump slapped on Russia's two largest oil companies, suggesting the president could add more sanctions or increase military support for the future.
Trump holds all the cards.
This is just one card he's playing.
There are many more, Whitaker said.
Does that sound like someone who's trying to get us out of war?
But here's the kicker, Dr. Paul.
In a separate interview with Fox News, the American ambassador claimed Russia is weak and should end the war as soon as possible.
This is the neocon line.
Quote, the Russians should end this senseless war as soon as they possibly can.
It's not going to get better for them.
Trump is going to continue to play these cards, it says.
So Russia's weak.
Russia's losing.
They need to give up.
Now put that next clip on.
At the same time, here is reality biting back.
Russian infantry operating inside Pokrovsk.
Strategic Ukrainian city's fall is imminent.
They're about to take the key logistical hub of Ukraine's Eastern Front, Pokrovsk, that they've been fighting for for a long time.
They have just gone into the city, Dr. Paul.
If you go to the next one, the city's defensive positions are a final obstacle to Russia's access to most of the region.
This is a key post, and it is falling as we speak to Russia.
It doesn't look like Russia is about to disintegrate.
Go to the next one.
The loss of the primary rail lines and highway routes in and out of Pokrovsk would cut resources to Ukrainian units across the Donbass and possibly force them to retreat before running out of supplies.
That would mean an immediate and sweeping Russian advance all along the eastern lines.
So on the one hand, you've got these people telling Trump, Trump, Russia is losing.
Russia is weak.
It's a paper tiger.
And he keeps repeating these things.
Well, on the ground, Russia keeps advancing the front lines.
Slow because it's a war of attrition, but nevertheless, constantly moving forward.
The two can't exist at the same time.
Yeah.
You know, Russia gets blamed for everything, and they're narrow angels for sure.
But Russia, as the Soviet system was crumbling, NATO was involved, Europe was involved, especially the United States was involved, and our administration was involved.
And they more or less had a good plan.
And it sort of happened to a degree.
And that was, why don't we trade?
Why don't the Russians sell oil and do all these things?
And Russia was all for this.
The only thing they asked for is don't put weapons on our borders.
Exactly.
You know, it was wrong when the Soviets did it.
They put their weapons in Cuba.
We didn't like it.
So what do we do?
We tell them, okay, that's a good deal.
And it looked like there was going to be trade with the country.
Then all of a sudden, the warmongers come up in 2014.
That's why it's absolutely wrong for people to complete the argument where you hear incessantly, you know, Russia started everything, which is not true.
It's not true.
And the people have to get riled up.
And now, of course, a lot of the people now have not been overwhelmed and are sorting it out.
And they think there's something fishy about this story.
And how long are we going to have to keep sending this money?
Well, until nobody will accept it anymore.
Yeah, exactly.
And that's going to come.
But you know, the military industrial complex, they're pretty happy about this new war on terror.
I'm sorry, war on narco-terror.
They're very happy about it.
Well, I just hope that people wake up.
They're lying to you all again.
It's all over again.
All the frenzy of action and support.
We love this.
We're blowing things up.
This is what I voted for.
It's going to end badly, guys.
It always does.
So keep your eyes open and don't trust the propaganda.
Thank you for watching the show.
That's our mission in life is to try to bust through the propaganda as much as we can.
So I will sign out and say thank you and trust it over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
I want to add one tidbit about what we were just talking about and how Russia and the Ukrainian situation has developed.
And the NATO ambassador said he's, and I think we did mention it already, he suggested that the president could add more sanctions.
And of course, sanctions aren't very friendly.
And increased military support for Ukraine.
Well, we talked about that.
And once again, he was bragging, you know, they hold a lot of cars.
We'll just put more sanctions.
But the truth is, I think what they're upset about is the sanctions didn't work.
They still got the oil out to China.
Oh, okay, we'll put sanctions on China.
Oh, India did it too.
But when they retaliate, they make less noise and less bragging about it.
And maybe they're more effective by doing this.
So this situation that still is with us and it isn't going to be resolved.
Unfortunately, common sense is not going to come to the government.
The common sense will come from the people.
And that's when changes will occur.
But right now, it is not occurring in Washington.
The process continues.
We change administrations.
And because mainly because, and in foreign policy, we're sick and tired of the neocons starting all these wars.
The new administration, we're not going to start a new war.
We're going to end wars by creating a whole new system, narco-terrorism as an enemy, and then fib about who's involved.
The whole thing is nonsense, and it's misinformation.
And as I said in our report today, it leads to try to silence the people who are dissenting and the people who are telling the truth.
And that's what they try.
But the truth, the real truth is you can't eliminate the truth.
Just because you try and you badmouth it, you don't, the truth always remains.
It's just a matter of time when the people hear about it, pick it up and act upon those truths.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection