Tag Archives: foriegn policy

Exclusive: Ron Paul Talks Media Bias, Rand Paul Campaign

In an exclusive interview, Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook talks with former Texas Congressman and liberty icon Dr. Ron Paul.

In the interview, Ron Paul shares his thoughts with Cook about his son Rand Paul’s presidential campaign. Ron also discussed with Cook his position on the Syrian refugee crisis, ISIS, foreign policy, gun control and the obstacles of overcoming a biased media.

Dr. Paul went on to request support for Rand’s money bomb at RandPaul.com.

Check out Ron Paul’s new book, Swords into Plowshares, here.

Exclusive: SC Congressman Mark Sanford Talks “28 Pages”, Rand’s Filibuster, and the Rise of Liberty Caucus

South Carolina Congressman Mark Sanford said that Kentucky Senator and Presidential candidate Rand Paul’s NSA filibuster will lend “a fighting chance” in the attempt to remove Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

“This is really a two thousand year old debate between security and liberty,” explained Sanford in an exclusive interview with Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook. “What historically happened is that civilizations traded off liberty in the hope of gaining security.”

Sanford explained that there is a historic tension between security and freedom, which is what’s at play currently with the NSA.

“I think the problem with NSA is again we know what’s best for y’all,” he added. “I think the Constitution knows what’s best for us.”

[bctt tweet=”This is really a two thousand year old debate between security and liberty. @RepSanfordSC”]

He further explained what’s happening with the Patriot Act: “What I think is going to happen is that McConnell is going to come back with some kind of jam technique on the last hours of May 31. Tragically the House went ahead with its bill. I voted against it. It basically codifies language that the courts have said was illegal, which is kind of crazy. Hopefully we can get it stopped on the Senate side, and we’ll see what happens.”

Sanford also stressed the importance of liberty and liberty lovers. “It’s a credit to all of the folks out there that love liberty,” he said.

Sanford has seen a House not focused on liberty, but he’s quick to point out that times have changed. Now he said there’s “a great group of liberty-focused individuals that do form a caucus,” Sanford said of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Cook asked Congressman Sanford about his experience reading the classified 28 pages in the 9/11 report.

Though Sanford couldn’t discuss the details of the classified report, he did share his personal thoughts with Cook and criticized the government’s lack of transparency.

Sanford told Cook, “It cements my belief in the importance of government being transparent about what they do and why they do it.”

“I think that for people to trust their government, they may agree or may disagree with the decision, but they want to know the why, and too often people are told just trust us, it’s not appropriate or you don’t have the capacity to know – that’s just not true,” said Sanford.

“Open and free governments are built upon transparency so that people can look under the hood, and say I agree or I disagree, and consequently hold people accountable, and when things are hidden people can’t do that…These kind of things for me reinforce my belief in the importance of freedom resting on openness and transparency in the way the government conducts its business.”

Listen to more of Cook’s interview with Mark Sanford where he discusses the 28-page classified 9/11 report and foreign policy:

Exclusive: Obama Partnering with the House of Saud is a terrible strategy

On Sunday, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was “extremely encouraged” by Saudi Arabia joining the U.S. coalition to fight ISIS. But should Kerry be so enthusiastic? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why does the U.S. government still consider Saudi Arabia to be our ally?

According to former Secretary of State and potential U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, ISIS has received funding from the Saudis.

Eight years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Clinton, wrote in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan) and other terrorist groups.”

Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11, has said the Washington has turned a blind eye to the Saudis support.

“I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the U.S. – and in particular their support for Isis,”he said.

The Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 has long been public knowledge since 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was a member of the Saudi ruling elite. For financing, al-Qaeda relied on a core group of private donors and charities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

Despite the Saudi connections of the 9/11 terrorists, Saudi Arabia and its citizens were treated with extreme leniency. After air travel was grounded, approximately 144 people were permitted to fly back to Saudi Arabia within days of the attacks without even being questioned by the FBI.

The most noteworthy example of the United States protecting Saudi Arabia is that those 28 pages about the country’s involvement in 9/11 are still censored, even 13 years after the event.

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, in their book The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11, quote a senior American official, who saw the 28 pages before they were excised, apparently on the initiative of President Bush, as saying: “If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight.”

The fundamental question is this: is America’s foreign policy making us safer or making the world more dangerous?

Please comment below.

 

Further reading. The Roots of ISIS by Brandon Turbeville.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria

Obama’s Plan to Bolster Free Syrian Army will Bolster ISIS

According to a Lebanese newspaper, The Daily Star, operatives from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are joining with radical Islamic groups to fight in military operations along the Syrian-Lebanese border.

Not often on the same side, the FSA, al-Nusra Front and ISIS entered a tenuous alliance of convenience to fight Assad-aligned forces in the badlands surrounding Arsal.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the al-Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,” Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade, told The Daily Star.

Previously, the FSA and the Islamist groups have until now only had limited coordination.

And this raises serious concerns after President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night where he announced an increase of American airstrikes in Syria.

Obama said the United States was recruiting a global coalition to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the militants, known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” he said, using the alternate name of ISIS, ISIL.

Also during the speech, which sounded like George W. Bush’s previous speeches, the President outlined a plan to bolster American training and arming of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the militants.

Benswann.com has previously reported on the US’ covert operations that arms al-Qaeda linked militants to topple the Assad regime in a religious proxy war. See here, here, and here.

As previously noted, there is no real distinction between moderate rebels and ISIS. In fact, there are an endless parade of reports that the U.S.-supported “moderate rebels” in the Free Syrian Army (FSA)  have joined ISIS. See here, here and here.

Obama’s plan, which mirrors the neoconservative strategy in Washington, seems to strengthen ISIS more by indirectly giving them arms and training.

Is bombing ISIS just a preconceived plan to bomb Syria in order to topple Assad?

Last year Americans protested and demanded that there be “no war with Syria.”

Obama backed off.

But the Nobel Peace Prize winning President and neoconservatives seemed to find a way to gain support for yet another unconstitutional war in the Middle East.


 

Rand Paul: Where’s the ‘Clear-cut American Interest’ in Fighting ISIS?

 

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) told Meet the Press’ David Gregory Sunday morning that he didn’t see the U.S.’s interest in engaging in military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Here are some excerpts from the interview on Sunday:

Gregory: ISIS is a terrorist organization, has been build by many as a clear and present danger to the United States as a terrorist actor, do you see that?

Paul: I look at it on a personal basis, I ask, do I want to send one of my sons or your son to fight to regain Mosul? And I think, well, these are nasty terrorists which we should wanna kill them, but who should want to stop them more? Maybe the people who live there. Should not the Shiites the Maliki government? Should they not stand up? And if they’re ripping their uniforms off inflating, if they don’t think Mosul is worth saving how am I going to convince my son or your son to die for Mosul? I know they are bad terrorist and yes, we should prevent them from exporting terror, but I’m not so sure where the clear-cut American interest is.

Gregory: Well, is the clear-cut American interest to protect America if these are terrorist who designed to hit America?

Paul: Well, I think if they are, then maybe we shouldn’t be funding their allies and supporting them in Syria. You see they are emboldened because we’ve been supporting them; it could be that Assad could have wiped these people out months ago. So what we do is we get in a confusing situation and I personally believe that this group would not be in Iraq and would not be as powerful, had we not been supplying their allies in the war as well as our allies are funding these people. They probably have weapons that were bought with Saudi Money or Kuwait money or Qatar money. A lot of the radicals have been getting arms and money from these countries.

Gregory: So do you support the President who says like you do look, the Iraqi should stand up and fight them but he also wants to send 300 advisers there to help out?

Paul: I don’t question the 300 advisers for this reason. I’m not sure exactly where they’re going and what they’re doing. I do think that we have an embassy there and we’ve got a thousand, two thousand people there, that yes, we have to defend our embassy. So I’m not going to nitpick the president and say “Oh, you shouldn’t send in a certain amount of advisers” and the military decisions are protect the embassy. It to me is very important. I’ve been talking a lot about Benghazi and how we didn’t protect them. So I’m not going to get involved to criticize the president for trying to protect our embassy there.