The spirit of this revolution is not going away.
This is the Ron Paul Liberty Report with Ron Paul, Daniel McAdams, and Chris Rossini.
We are all ambassadors of the Ron Paul Doctrine, and it's a simple, just tell the truth.
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 fine.
Good.
Ready and raring to go.
Let's do it.
But my mind is boggled, and you're good at arithmetic.
Oh yeah, right.
No, they have a new, it's the new math, isn't it?
They have a different math than Washington.
But we're going to talk about an article that Jack, our friend Jack Hunter wrote about
what are the options and are they on the road to, you know, a balanced budget?
Well, if you know Jack, that's not what he's going to be talking about.
He's honest.
So here he starts off his article, the Pentagon is asking Congress for another $200 billion for the war around,
which is almost a quarter of the annual U.S. defense.
Well, if that shouldn't stop every member of Congress to know what they're going to do on the vote,
they wouldn't play this game.
Oh, in case they need this or blah, blah, blah.
They go back and forth and they want to cover their bases.
They want to satisfy the president.
They want to satisfy their constituents, especially the ones who are noisy
and they have a lot of money and they donate to campaign.
But he goes through this pretty well.
It's not very encouraging.
But I wanted you to clarify something.
And I asked you and you said, you got a little confused too.
I said, first it was going to be less than a trillion in military.
And then they got it up to a trillion.
They said, oh, we're being, this is a couple of months ago.
Oh, wait, we need 150 trillion.
And now they're asking for $200 billion more.
You know, what are they doing?
Where are they spending this money?
They're making us peace.
Giving us peace and prosperity and making the American people happy
and by bringing our troops home and saving a dollar or two.
No, it looks like these billions have turned into trillions of dollars.
And the truth is they probably don't know the difference
and they probably don't care.
As long as they can coerce the people in Congress
because we've talked a little bit about this
and we've realized that they'll never declare war again.
I was told that about the first week I was in Congress
that I was in a conversation on a radio program with a Democrat.
He says, Ron, he says, that's good.
He says, I sort of agree with you.
But there will never be another war declared.
And that was back in 1976.
And I was hoping he was wrong.
But it turned out, no, we don't declare war,
but we declare war by an inference.
We just tell him, do what you want and we'll ignore it
and we'll help you as long as there's somebody behind us
that can take care of our financial needs and get us re-elected
because we want to stay in Congress to help out.
And I can't do much if I'm not in Congress.
So I have to be a little bit flexible.
And so that's where we are.
We're very flexible now.
We don't even know what we're doing with what.
So this is a mess.
And although we hear a pronouncement on television
and on the internet, well, you know,
the administration is doing well.
They're in conversation and they've offered a treaty
in agreement with Iran.
But it looks like the leadership in Iran
has begun to awaken up.
I don't think they even admitted
they're not going to fool us again.
Yeah, after twice.
Well, as you say, Jack Hunter,
our friend wrote this for Responsible Statecraft.
You can put that up.
And certainly it's an admirable article.
I would file it under wishful thinking, though,
and it's no insult to Jack,
but Republicans stepping up criticism, skepticism,
I should say, over $200 billion war request.
Skepticism is a word that has to be redefined
when you're talking about certainly beltway spending
because skepticism means I need political cover,
but I'm going to give you the money.
Hang on a minute.
Go to the next one now.
Here's what Jack writes.
What about Republicans?
He said Democrats are largely and predictably against this
additional $200 billion for the Iran war.
Democrats are largely against it.
Of course, for political reasons.
Oh, never, never, never.
But Jack, keep it up, please.
But Jack writes, what about Republicans?
While many say they support the president's war
and they certainly do not want to allow a vote on it.
Right, Jack, that's true.
Republicans, in varying degrees,
embrace the mantle of fiscal conservatism.
I wonder when that was.
This supplemental request will be in addition
to the more than trillion approved last year,
including a $150 billion add-on.
Money the Pentagon is still struggling to spend.
So what about Republicans?
Well, I would say they're not reading the polls.
They're out of touch with the American public.
Americans, by and large, are not interested in this war.
Even Republicans are not interested in this war.
Certainly when you talk about boots on the ground,
which this money is going to go for,
Republicans are completely against it.
But Republican members of Congress?
Not so much, right?
You know, there's always a limit on the spending
and the problems and the ramifications,
the violation of civil liberties.
And they went too far with COVID.
People finally do wake up.
And I think most of the time it's too little, too late.
Most of the time it takes a long time.
I don't even know if they ever woke up.
I think they just got worn out
and walked away from Afghanistan.
Yet even when they pretend they walk away,
I thought maybe we finally learned our lesson
10 years in Iraq.
I thought we finally gave up on that.
But we really never left.
We always had a base there.
So they're involved in the battle now
that has been created by our side of that war
with Iran.
So it's one of those things that keeps going on and on.
And I think, I hope this is a subtle reflection
some of these politicians saying different things.
But I think you were inferring,
don't they listen to their constituency?
Because the numbers are just fantastic
when you say, should you spend this money on something?
I think the answer to doing these bills
where they put 100 different things in the bill
and satisfy everybody,
I think every amendment that would add money
to a bill when it's on the high flow
should be voted on separately.
Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?
Put it up and down.
You want $500 billion,
let's not play these games
because we're broke, we don't have any money,
we have to save a dollar.
But what do you think the odds are
of us having our way on that?
I don't think they're very good.
I think it's going in the opposite direction.
I mean, when we were there,
there was a little bit of transparency on it.
But now they just pile it all in.
Well, let's go back to Jack's piece.
I've got the next clip.
Honestly, for the freedom caucus types
who have demanded holding the line
on deficit spending, and I highlight this,
this should be a no-brainer.
Yes, that is true, it should.
Definitely Jack, it should be a no-brainer.
Even more so for those who remain unclear
as to why the president is waging this war
without Congress congressional approval
in the first place.
Like deficit hawk Thomas Massey
who criticized the supplemental as well as the war
telling CNN it begs the question,
how long do they plan to be there?
What are the goals?
Is this the first $200 billion?
Does this turn into a trillion?
Very, very good questions. Go to the next one.
And here's what they say, Dr. Paul,
and here's how we should interpret it.
Representative Lauren Bubert
who wasn't having it.
She wasn't having it.
She said, I'm so tired of spending money elsewhere.
I'm tired of the industrial war complex
getting our hard-earned dollars.
I've got folks in Colorado
who can't afford to live.
We need American first policies right now.
I will put $10 on the table
Dr. Paul, she votes for it.
And Chip Roy, we talked about it before the show.
Let's not get started on Chip Roy
who always puffs out his chest
and says, I know you don't like talking about people
but I'm going a little bit.
He puffs out his chest and says,
I'm against it. I'm not going to spend any more
Texas money. And then at the very end
he backs down, of course, every time.
But Jack Wright's Chip Roy
gave him more nuanced view.
He defended Trump's position on Iran, of course.
But he also told Fox News
he wants to know where the money's going.
I like to be consistent.
I was consistent about Ukraine.
I'm going to be consistent on Iran.
I just need to make sure I know the game plan.
We want to know what the result's going to be.
Yes, Chip Roy, you are very consistent.
You always give money for war.
I have an idea.
Brilliant idea.
Let's invite him to come on our program.
Yes.
And tell him that we put a little bit of time
in studying this.
And we won't have a perfect answer
to your question.
I'm wondering.
But we'll try to answer the question
where's the money going?
And I'll bet we can get pretty close
to where the money is going
that we could just flat out quit.
We don't even have to cut a here,
10% here or there.
That we just should go that way
because it's wrong.
We don't have the money.
It's unconstitutional.
It's based on theft.
You have to steal money from people
that they disagree with war
and disagree with everything's going on in the Middle East.
Steal the money from them.
And then they suffer what?
The people who have to pay the bulk of this
are the ones who suffer the consequences
of oil prices going up.
And that's the way it is.
And the overall problems of inflation.
So, no, I don't know whether Chip,
I don't know if I've met Chip,
but I sort of said when he came on the scene
and he was in the,
I think he was in the Freedom Caucus,
which wasn't quite like our caucus that we had.
No, no, no.
Most of the things I saw,
but as time went on, I thought,
oh, maybe he has to do this
to get reelected or something.
I was trying to make an excuse for him.
But I predict he probably wouldn't come on.
How did you ever get reelected then
if you didn't do that all the time?
It's a mystery.
It became an asset.
Isn't that amazing?
What they think is the most dangerous thing to do.
And I always laughed at it
because I surprised myself.
When I took a position which I thought was very sound
and it was challenging,
and that was a challenge to the war on drugs,
the insanity of war on drugs.
And I was told,
and people who never could understand it,
but they understood the politics,
they said, Ron, you'll never get reelected
if you're not against putting all these kids that smoke to me,
marijuana weed,
then put them in prison
where they really learn the tricks of their hands.
Exactly.
How to do better drugs.
Well, here's a little bit more.
This is Hexeth.
I'm not even going to say anything about Hexeth.
Just watch him if you want to know what happens.
But go to that.
It takes money, a clip if you can.
Here's Hexeth.
I won't even do an impression of Hexeth.
Dr. Paul, I don't want to,
I don't want to lower the show.
But it takes money to kill bad guys.
Hexeth told reporters last week,
we're going back to Congress and folks there
to ensure we're properly funded for what's been done
and for what we may have to do in the future.
We got to ensure that our ammunition,
that everything is refilled.
So when I read this, Dr. Paul, I thought,
hang on a minute,
they just gave you a trillion dollars
and you don't have ammo?
Where did the money go?
I mean, we spend a trillion dollar military budget.
But wars aren't included.
You know, it's like you've gotten you by a car
and the wheels are extra.
I mean, what do you think?
The hood, well, that's extra.
A trillion dollars for the military.
But the wars are extra.
We got to buy ammo.
You know what?
What if He got what He wanted for?
Give him the money.
Okay, you have to start with the bad guys.
And we'll find out what is good and bad.
And what would have happened if some of the politicians
were on the list?
Take this money and spend it on killing the bad guys.
Well, I'll tell you what,
the attack on liberty and attack on the personal lives
of every American citizen
because they've been bamboozled.
And almost like now, you know,
I keep going back to this declaration
the first month I was in Congress.
Ron, quit worrying about this
because I'm the chairman of this committee
and there's never going to be a declaration of war again.
But he did not say we have ways to get people into war.
We have ways to get the members of Congress
to always vote for the money.
And sometimes we will eventually know how to do it
without even talking about the money.
We can just do things in a very secretive way
through the central banking system,
which I believe happens.
But that's a much bigger and more complicated situation.
Absolutely.
Well, let's pick on someone else for a minute.
And it's not personal.
It's just this indicative of the mindset in D.C.
Put that next one up.
This is Representative Nancy Mace.
Now, she's putting her foot down, Dr. Paul.
If a single boot of a single American soldier
sets foot on Iranian soil,
I will vote against this,
meaning the supplemental.
I will not vote to fund sending South Carolina sons and daughters
to die in a ground war with Iran.
So if no soldiers are on Iranian soil, you'll vote for it then?
I mean, that's literally what she's saying.
If a boot is on the ground, I'll vote against...
If a boot goes on the ground,
she will be pushing everyone out of line
and vote first for the money.
Otherwise they'll tell her, keep it up, please,
that she's not being patriotic.
But here's the beauty of X for all of its faults.
They have community notes, Dr. Paul,
where you can correct people who say things that are incorrect.
If you go to the next one,
the community note said to Nancy,
Nancy Mace already voted against the war powers resolution
that allowed the Iran conflict to...
And she allowed the Iran conflict to continue
without any oversight from Congress.
So she's making a big deal,
a big blustery deal about,
I'm not going to vote for this money.
She's going to vote for it, Dr. Paul.
And I think the one thing that's most important
that Americans need to understand
is as you say, because we don't vote to declare war
and now we don't even vote to authorize war,
when you vote for the money, that is your vote for the war.
That has to be made clear
and maybe someday they'll wake up
and the message has to get to the people
because if there isn't a consensus by the people,
the members of Congress won't listen.
And yet you say, well, isn't that like mob rule?
Well, no, we have mob rule
when you have pure democracy
and you have deficits and then the mob gangs up on the minority.
So all you need is 51%
and you take all the money from the 49%
and take their controls.
So, you know, putting your foot on the ground
is a little bit confusing
because you don't even know where the boundaries are.
Does that mean are we going to include
Venezuela on this?
We'll put our foot on the ground
and nobody complains
as long as they think they're getting more control
and control of oil and all these other things.
So I don't think it's complicated.
I think it's a basic principle
of just having a concept of natural law
which has been built into our Constitution,
common decency, morality
and talk about non-interventionism
and have a foreign policy that follows that.
And it would be a lot nicer
and there would be just thinking
of the thousands of people
that are bombs since World War II
after World War II
have been killed by our weaponry.
Even now, you know,
all these bombs going on in the Middle East,
I mean, almost all the countries
in the Middle East are involved.
And that means we're involved.
So it looks like the promise
that we got in the campaign
that there are to be no new wars
and we're going to stop the wars.
And now with the effort to stop this war
becomes a little more complicated
than most of them thought.
And you remember it very well, Dr. Paul,
because voting for the money is the trap.
Because once you vote for the money,
once the war starts,
you're never going to be able to not vote
for more money because they say you sent them there.
You're going to let them lose.
Yeah, you're going to get them after without any ammunition.
You want them to die? You want Americans to die?
That's the trap. That's the trick.
That's why the other answer is so simple
and it should get more encouragement,
you know, to allow the people
to make sure they can spend their own money.
And sometimes they say,
well, what if there's a condition someplace
and there was an abuse?
Could an American citizen go over there and help?
If you don't let them steal money from one group
and send the troops, you know,
sometimes that happens.
People can volunteer,
but that shouldn't be the excuse for us
and the Marines to save their lives.
I mean, it should be done at their own risk,
but that is just an academic idea.
Because I think the controls are pretty solid
and then you mix that in with international organizations
like NATO and United Nations
and it gets a little more confusing.
It does indeed.
Well, the second thing we want to talk about briefly
is just kind of an update on yesterday
because remember yesterday the entire day
was about Trump saying we're negotiating with Iran.
We're so close to a deal.
They are talking sense.
Finally, we are so close to a deal.
Well, it turns out that was just talk for the markets.
It wasn't true.
And in fact, today it's just like
Trump is gaslighting us.
He says stuff that he knows isn't true
and we're just expected to believe it.
We'll go to this next one.
Now, this is from Hedge this morning.
Iran rejects U.S. proposed ceasefire,
counters with five conditions for ending the war
as U.S. troops are en route.
So they're not having talks.
They're not about to make an agreement.
They said no way, Jose.
We don't want to have no interest in this deal
that you're sending us.
And as you said in your opener, Dr. Paul,
why would they?
Every time they sit down to talks,
they get blown up.
Who would sit down again?
Nobody.
So go to the next one.
Now, here's what Iran wants to end the war.
A complete halt to aggression and assassinations
by the enemy.
The establishment of concrete mechanisms
to ensure the war is not reimposed
on the Islamic Republic.
Guarantee and clearly define payment
of war damages and reparations.
Well, they were the ones who were tagged.
I mean, for the conclusion of the war
across all fronts and for all resistance groups
involved throughout the region
and five international recognition and guarantees
regarding Iran's sovereign right
to exercise authority over the Strait of Hormuz.
So that basically is going to change a lot of things.
And now you go to the next one.
Now, here's what they've said.
Iranian officials have told the countries
trying to mediate the peace talks with the U.S.
that they have been out and tricked
twice by President Trump.
And quote, we don't want to be fooled again.
Well, according to a source.
Well, that's understandable.
You can't keep blowing up people you're negotiating with
and invite them to come back for new negotiations.
It's not rocket science, I think, Dr. Paul.
You know, I got a kick out of this one
answer from an Iranian leader.
He said what they don't understand
is that we are going to defend it.
And they used the term I thought was appropriate.
And they don't realize that we would defend our land.
And I always make the point that the people,
the people who beat us are the people
who own the land they live there.
And of course, that always, you know,
in the general principle of liberty,
it not only should people who get together
and put a society together have a right
to defend their land as they see it.
It's also the principle of private property, you know.
And it's so amazing how we go in the wrong direction.
But that's history.
History, they've been going the wrong way forever.
Because in spite of all the wars
and everything that's going on, even in the 20th century,
just think of the scientific improvements that have been made.
Yet at the same time, millions of people
have died at the hand of a government
that pursues these causes with the use of force.
So this is something that I don't know whether they'll ever...
They're not on a verge of peace-breaking eyes the way I see it.
So we'll have to see.
Yeah.
Well, I had a couple of tidbits toward the end, Dr. Paul.
And one, with always great insights
from our friend Glenn Greenwald,
you remember when the Republicans,
when Trump was tearing up the JCPOA, the Iran deal,
he said, that stupid Obama, he gave Iran $1.7 billion.
Of course, it was their own money.
Yeah, we sure.
For them.
But it was a whole thing was still.
That dumb Obama, how did he give them money?
Well, put up Glenn Green...
Sorry.
Put up Glenn's piece, a little ex-post now,
which is kind of funny.
One of the most consistent vehement complaints about Obama
was that he released funds of $1.7 billion to Iran.
They think Obama gifted it to them
rather than released it at the funds that we stole, but whatever.
And here's the funny part, Dr. Paul.
Trump's lifting of sanctions on Iran this week
could generate $14 billion for Iran.
So they're going to get $14 billion from this
because Trump is panicking over the oil markets.
And rightly so.
And I have two videos to play
because this is also Trump talking about how we're winning.
We've won.
It's all over.
And I'm going to just follow up those videos
with something that I think is why he seems
to be so out of touch with reality.
You might want to grab that earpiece.
These are short, Dr. Paul,
but you might want to put in your sound piece
and listen to President Trump.
Disappointed.
I don't want to say this, but I have to.
I said, Pete and General Raisin Cain,
I think this thing is going to be settled very soon.
Here they go.
Oh, that's too bad.
Pete didn't want it to be settled.
It's these guys are doing a great job.
That's a good attitude though, Tom, right?
They were not interested in settlement.
They were interested in just winning this thing.
Yeah.
Let's go to the second one then.
Sorry.
Let's go to the second one.
This is this is him talking about how we've how we've won here.
Well, we're in negotiations as it turned out.
And now you've seen what I said yesterday was exactly
correct.
We're in negotiations right now.
They're doing it along with Marco JD.
We have a number of people doing it.
And the other side, I can tell you, they'd like to make a deal.
And who wouldn't, if you were there, look,
their Navy's gone.
Their Air Force is gone.
There we go.
They're dying to make a deal.
We're talking right now.
We're making a deal.
They're ready and say there's absolutely no truth to it.
And you say, well, why is Trump making this stuff up?
We'll go to that next clip, Dr. Paul.
And I think this might be a reason.
Catherine Doyle is with NBC News.
She's a White House correspondent.
And this is kind of revelatory.
I mean, this is important that Catherine Doyle.
Here we go.
Exclusive, every day since the start of the war,
US military officials compile a video update for President
Trump that shows the biggest, most successful strikes
on Iranian targets over the previous 48 hours.
But the military can't fully brief Trump on every strike.
So the video, while it showcases US capabilities,
doesn't reflect the full scope of the conflict.
We can't tell him every single thing that happens,
a current US official said.
The official noted that Trump's briefings tend to draw
better feedback from his aides
than when they focus on US victories.
So he's not getting a briefing book, Dr. Paul.
He's not getting a CIA briefing.
He's getting video clips of bombs dropping on Tehran.
Well, no wonder he feels convinced that we're winning.
I get a kick out of the fact that when things get
in the trouble like oil distribution
and the ships doing this, that he has to suspend
the sanctions on Russians.
Suspend even the oil coming out of Iran.
So it's admission of the whole thing.
Not only is it a foreign policy failure,
but all this sanction stuff and tariffs and things,
they find out that they're a nuisance
when you go and start a war on top of it.
The argument always is that if you don't have trade,
you will eventually have war.
Wars break out.
But in this case, it was a combination coming together.
And I think that's why the American people
are very unhappy about expanding the war
and sending more troops over there.
And how that's going to solve the problems that we face.
I have no idea where they get that information.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I do have an announcement to make
if you put that final clip up.
I said I was going to have a big announcement.
This is for our spring conference coming up in a month's time.
Plenty of time to get those tickets, but not a lot of tickets left.
Yes, indeed.
Marjorie Taylor Green will be coming down to Texas
to speak at the Ron Paul Institute Conference
on April 25th.
Dr. Paul, she's an independent voice.
People thought she was going to just shut up
once she left Congress.
She's done the opposite.
She's spearheading some serious political movements in the U.S.
She's talking to all the right people.
If you were a subscriber to Ron Paul,
this was an update she'd know this last night.
But when I asked her originally a few weeks ago,
it's been hard to get her.
She said, I love Ron Paul.
I love to do it.
But her schedule was difficult,
but she worked everything out.
She's going to be down here.
You're going to want to see Marjorie Taylor Green in person
talking about what it was like in D.C.
for all the stuff that's happening.
So I'm going to go ahead and put the link
in the show right now to get those tickets.
Don't miss that on your opportunity.
I've got another big announcement tomorrow,
but this is a big one.
Marjorie Taylor Green.
I can't wait to meet her in person.
She seems like such an interesting personality.
Wonderful.
Yeah.
You know what I like?
I like when people subtly but brilliantly
change their opinion and challenges the status quo.
And this to me takes a lot of courage at times
because there's a lot of heat from your allies
and you have in politics,
you have all these loyalties yet to deal with.
But I often think of one of my heroes,
and that was, of course, our friend was Walter Jones,
because he was so locked in on the foreign policy.
But he went from irrational hawkism that he had to bomb
and all this stuff to the point where he was one of the
strongest and most influential individuals
and he is still remembered by that.
So I love it when we come across somebody
that challenges the status quo and decides that,
yes, even though a lot of people went along with this.
But there's people like this all the time
and sometimes you never hear from them
because I know after I decided that everybody should
wake up and think more about the stupidity of the war
on drugs that there were a lot of people came out.
And then all of a sudden they were sort of
waiting on somebody to say it.
So I think it is a wonderful thing.
I don't like it when people go the other way
where they're basically libertarian and niche
and conservative and constitutionalist.
And then they get into Washington and they see,
oh, to become influential and to have clout,
you have to go the other way.
I don't like that.
I think that's a sellout.
And unfortunately more leave.
But boy, when people wake up and say,
I might just, if I change my position on this
and I think it's a delight because I think
that it represents the people waking up.
I always use it as an example to wake people
waking up under the insanity of treating COVID
and a couple of things like that
because that is moving in the right direction.
So that is I think from moment to moment
that's the most we can ever have happen to us
is at least take the step in the right direction
because we can't achieve a perfect liberty
and perfect peace, but we can move in that direction.
But if we're always stepping in the direction,
the direction of setting up the bigger government
and government interventionism overseas
and more spending, I'll tell you what,
that could be discouraging, but the one thing is it always ends
and we have to be prepared for that
and the answers are not complex.
The answers can be found in peace and prosperity
by recognizing the liberty of each and every individual.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today
to the Liberty Report.
Please come back soon.
This country is in a revolution
and I happen to be lucky enough to be part of it.