In “The Blue Tent Sky: How The Left’s War On Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom,” Brian Aitken tells a harrowing tale of injustice when he was sentenced to seven years in prison for possessing weapon that he had the legal right to own.
He lost everything. His freedom and the custody of his son. After spending four months in prison, Aitken’s cause was championed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie demanded his release.
“Aitken tells his story with a winning combination of the naivety he began with and the hard knowledge he’s learned. He writes to some degree out of a desire for vengeance via exposure on those in the judicial system who wronged him, yet his tone is mostly admirably restrained. He trusts the reader will see the injustice he suffered so doesn’t feel the need to rail about it. He tells his story; he doesn’t try to oversell it,” wrote Brian Doherty of Reason.com.
Aitken’s story is a worthy read. The gist of his story has to do with New Jersey’s Graves Act, which imposes mandatory sentences on certain gun-related crimes.
Some background, Aitken doesn’t have a criminal record and is a fully legal gun owner. The guns in his possession were purchased with his now-estranged wife, who he was fighting with over his then infant son.
Aitken’s “crime” stems from a incident involving an off-handed remark he made to his mother, who then called 911 and hung up. Meanwhile Aitkens is driving, and his life changes in an instant.
“The police show up. They call Aitken, still driving. They threaten him with a statewide manhunt if he doesn’t voluntarily drive back to his parents’ house. They threaten to send him on a 72-hour psych lockdown to pressure him into agreeing to let them search his car. During the search they find the guns that he insists—and no evidence the state ever presented contradicted—he had put in the trunk earlier that day, unloaded, and was preparing to move them from his parents’ house to his new home, both in New Jersey,” wrote Doherty.
The police arrest Aitken for possessing his guns. And because of this, he loses visitation with his son.
BenSwann.com’s Joshua Cook had a chance to speak with Aitken about his book and his story.
An execution in Arizona has been put on hold by a federal appeals court after the court said the man sentenced to death has a right to know what drugs will be used in the cocktail used to carryout his execution.
Joseph Wood was convicted of the 1989 shooting and deaths of his ex-girlfriend, Debra Dietz, as well as her father Eugene. Wood was sentenced to death in 1991 and was scheduled to be put to death this Wednesday, but a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this past Saturday Wood was entitled to more information regarding the drugs which would put him to death.
The ruling states, according to the Washington Post, “Information concerning execution protocol is not only of general interest to the public, it is important for consideration by the courts. … We, and the public, cannot meaningfully evaluate execution protocol cloaked in secrecy.”
“Today the court has made a well-reasoned ruling,” said Wood’s lawyer Dale Baich, according to the BBC, after hearing the verdict, “affirming the core First Amendment principles regarding the public’s right to know, which aid all parts of our democratic government.”
This ruling was brought about after Wood, along with five other death row inmates, sued the state of Arizona for not providing adequate information on the drug cocktail to be used in their executions. The secrecy surrounding the drugs used in botched Ohio and Oklahoma executions is the central issue at hand, and the six inmates say the secrecy surrounding the drugs violates their constitutional rights.
Dissenting judge on the appeals court, Judge Jay S. Bybee, said in a statement according to the NY Times, the court had expanded the right of access under the First Amendment in order to “bar the state from lawfully imposing the death penalty.”
While speaking at the Colorado Libertarian Party Convention a few weeks ago, I had the chance to talk cryptocurrencies with the great folks at Amagi Metals. We also talk about financial responsibility and precious metals. Plus, we had the opportunity to talk about debt and the “Truth in Media Project”.
He is only a second term Congressman and yet Rep. Justin Amash from Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District has made a lot of waves. The waves he has made however, are not in the form of theatrics or creating a sideshow of himself. Rather, Amash has made a name for himself as being one of the rare members of Congress who votes only to uphold and protect the Constitution rather than down party lines.
The 32 year-old attorney says he works every day to represent his entire constituency rather than just a small portion of primary voters. It is likely for that reason that Amash has risen to the top of the GOP hit list. Republican insiders such as Karl Rove have called Amash “the most liberal Republican”. Meanwhile, a coalition of business owners and special interest groups are backing a primary challenge to Amash, hoping to defeat him this spring.
Ben Swann spoke with Amash for a half hour on the Ben Swann Radio Show, Wednesday about the challenge he is facing in the primary and why Republican establishment is so afraid of him. Rep. Amash also talked about the challenges of a political system that is for sale to special interest groups and lobbying firms.
Below are transcripts from the interview as well as the full audio interview.
Swann: “You are a guy who has made a lot of headlines lately, specifically because Republican establishment is so afraid of you because they are really coming after you this primary season and trying to remove you from office at really any cost necessary. Is that correct?”
Amash: “Yeah, it seems like there is a more concerted effort this time around. Last time they kinda stayed on the sidelines during the primary but this time they have stories in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and another major publications where my name is in there, my name is in the stories. Somebody is putting my name in there, somebody is telling these reporters, ‘Justin Amash is the establishment’s main target’.”
Swann: “Karl Rove called you the ‘most liberal Republican in the House’. I suppose if we are talking about classical liberal that is true. But when Karl Rove says that, that is a laughable statement in the way he is using it because clearly he is using ‘liberal’ as a smear, to call you the most liberal Republican. I follow you on Facebook and so I see your Facebook posts. You are the only guy I’ve seen who posts every single vote you make in Congress and you post why you voted the way you did. I’ve never seen anything that I would call ‘progressively’ liberal, what I have seen I would call Constitutionally sound.”
Amash: “Thanks, I’ve been doing that since I was in the State House, I got to Congress and I wanted to make sure that I explained every vote. I’ve done that over 2,300 times since I have been in Congress. I’m a Constitutional conservative and some people call that libertarian. And look, if you look at my score cards across multiple organizations, I am considered one of the most conservative members of Congress, if not THE most conservative and I’m proud of that. People at home want me to follow the Constitution. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat or Independent, I think that’s what people are looking for, someone who will follow the Constitution and I think that scares some people in the Republican establishment because there are times when I will cross over and vote with Democrats to help limit the size of government and if there are instances where Democrats will help to limit the size of government and Republicans aren’t, then that scares the Republican establishment.”
Swann: The guy who is running against you Brian Ellis is basically attacking you from the right and from the left. He is basically arguing that you are both too liberal and too conservative and too principled. Now when you start saying that a Congressman is too principled, talk about an oxymoron.”
Amash: “It has been a bizarre campaign. He’s really tried to have it both ways. That’s because I am independent and I am a constitutional conservative. For a guy like him who is from the political establishment and believes in big government, he doesn’t understand someone like me. He doesn’t understand principles, he doesn’t understand following the Constitution, so he is going to attack from all sorts of angles. You know, I’m doing what I was elected to do, to follow the Constitution and to limit the size of government and making sure that we protect people’s liberty.”
Swann: “Ron Paul was the architect of the money bomb, at least his campaign was. I don’t think he ever planned for it to be that way but it certainly became a very successful fundraising tool.”
Amash: “Yeah for people like Ron Paul and like me, we don’t get very much support from corporate PACs or special interest groups. We are certainly not out there trying to seek that kind of support and even if we were, we are not going to get it. They are not interested in people who follow the Constitution and seek liberty, so I have to go straight to the people and ask for their support.
We had a money bomb that started yesterday and we still have it up at JustinAmash.com and people can go there today and support our efforts. And I really depend on individuals out there to help support my campaign. If I don’t receive individual support individual support my campaign doesn’t have the resources to compete. You have to have resources to get advertising out.
Most members of Congress receive their contributions from corporate PACs and other interest groups. I don’t. I have to receive most of my money from individuals and if that dries up, I’m in trouble.”
Swann: “I am curious, how many visits do you get from special interest or lobbying firms?”
Amash: “We still get a fair share but it certainly has gone down significantly since I first entered Congress. I remember when I first got here, it was all the time. People coming in and asking for favors and asking me for money. They would me that if we spent $1 on this we would get $2 or $3 dollars back in return. And when you tell people we have a spending problem and we can’t afford to be doing this, at some point they stop showing up at your door. But look, I am here to represent all the people. Anyone is welcome to come to my door, to come here and make pitches. Lobbyists can come here and make pitches but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to go along with them. But I have to represent every single person not just special interest groups and lobbyists.”
Swann and Rep. Amash went on to talk about a new bill being put forward by Congressman Mike Rogers that will reportedly “end NSA bulk collection of data.” Rep. Amash explains how that is not the case at all, in fact, the bill will likely increase the amount of data being collected and accessed by government.
You can listen to that and the rest of the full interview here:
LOS ANGELES, December 19, 2013 — I recently published an article illustrating the events that have unfolded surrounding Duck Commander patriarch Phil Robertson‘s recent suspension from Duck Dynasty after an interview with GQ.
Many government officials and individuals have been issuing statements claiming that Robertson’s First Amendment rights were violated.
Former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stepped in to support Robertson. “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,” wrote Palin on Facebook. Those who know me are well aware that I have a massive crush on Palin. However, she’s missed the mark here.
One reader left a comment that she was disappointed with the article I wrote because I didn’t talk about the first amendment. “You can do better,” she said. Why should I talk about the First Amendment when it’s not even slightly applicable?
This commentary would be parallel to the Supreme Court laying out rules in landmark cases that have absolutely nothing to do with the case before them. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court felt compelled to use their own commentary, as a means to legislate from the bench, ways the federal government could indefinitely detain US citizens. In dissent, Justice Scalia & Justice Stevens wrote that the Supreme Court’s ruling was extra-constitutional because the Court had no right to provide such commentary as rule of law to indefinitely detain citizens.
So, here’s the commentary outside of the news article –where it belongs:
First we must examine the groups making these claims. They are conservatives, and most conservatives claim to be free-market supporters. I am also a conservative (more so a “conservatarian”), but those making these claims are wrong, and they clearly do not understand the free-market.
When Chic-Fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments and donated to traditional marriage groups conservatives criticized liberals who protested Chic-Fil-A. “It’s a private business. Deal with it,” conservatives shouted. However, now the tables have turned. Today, conservatives are screaming, “First Amendment rights!” Meanwhile, from those same conservatives, hardly a trickle of non-bias commentary is provided, which is under the tone of being neutral, and in support of the free-market.
Do you support the free-market, or not? Either you believe in private enterprise, or you believe that laws should govern the market. No ambiguous middle ground can exist here. Why? When one violates the underlying principle of free-market capitalism in pursuance of supporting individual values, the principle of economic liberty, at this moment, is destroyed. Moving forward, all with differing values will pursue law and government intervention in order to achieve these values. This is the philosophical argument.
The lawful argument is simple. No one’s First Amendment rights were violated here. The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the federal government, and the federal government alone. The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the federal government from becoming too strong– not state governments and certainly not private businesses.
The Supreme Court has held multiple times that the Bill of Rights was not, and was never intended to be incorporated to the individual states by means of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Adamson v. California Justice Frankfurter wrote that the idea of incorporation would, “tear up by the roots much of the fabric of law in the several States, and would deprive the States of opportunity for reforms in legal process designed for extending the area of freedom.”
Either you support a limited federal government, or you do not. We already know that the Bill of Rights is applicable only to federal law and not state law. If we know this as Constitutional truth then why would anyone make the argument that A&E, as a private business, violated Robertson’s First Amendment rights? There is no rule of law to give warrant to such claims.
Governor Jindal (R-LA) took to Twitter with his First Amendment argument, and even paid to have the tweet promoted, which reads, “I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment”. If Jindal doesn’t know that the First Amendment applies only to federal laws, not private enterprise, then I’m not sure how he believes he is a limited government, free-market kind of guy.
Other conservatives have argued A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against religion, sex, national origin, etc. However, when a conservative business makes headlines for not hiring a gay individual many scream in dissent. Now the tables are turned and conservatives cite the Act in support.
Many parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional (violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) and anti-capitalism. Conservatives are more than willing to agree with that unless an avenue to spread their values becomes available through the Act. Saying parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional immediately labels you as a racist. I would remind those who would label me racist to recall that not too long ago the federal government stepped outside of its constitutionally delegated authority to label a black man a piece of property and not a human (Dred Scott v. Sandford). This same man, or piece of property, as the federal government labeled him, was provided refuge by state governments, but the feds weren’t having it. The United States federal government is the most racist entity in the world, but that’s another story. Furthermore, A&E and the Robertson family are in a private contract. This means that most likely they are not direct employees of A&E, but independent contractors.
With regards to free-speech, until you are willing to fight till your death to defend someone’s right to say something that you, as an individual, disagree with in every fiber of your soul — you do not support free-speech. If you do not fight this fight then you only support free-speech when it is speech you agree with, which is certainly not free-speech at all. This goes for those who support and oppose Robertson.
I support the Robertson family and everything they stand for. However, I certainly do not support the claims that their rights were somehow violated. In fact, I believe that, as a free-market success story, they’d probably agree with my sentiment.
I would argue that if you are truly upset with A&E do not look to unconstitutional laws, or the federal government for resolution. Look to the market. Chic-Fil-A brought in record earnings after they were attacked by the left. Many who watch Duck Dynasty are of the conservative, tea party, libertarian fabric, so simply turn off your TV and A&E will suffer greatly.
In this latest Truth In Media episode I interview Dr. Ron Paul and talk about the future of the liberty movement and alternative media.
A South Carolina election law may put a Libertarian Party candidate in a Charleston-area (District 42) Senate seat. The seat was left vacant on May 31, when Democrat Robert Ford resigned due to a scandal surrounding the use of public funds at adult establishments. A special election was held on October 1 and won by Democrat Marlon Kimpson, who garnered 79.6% of the vote. See article.
Republican Billy Shuman Jr. got 19% of the vote, while Libertarian Party candidate Alex Thornton got just 1.2%.
Jeremy Walters, Chairman of the Libertarian Party in York County, S.C., though, filed a lawsuit on September 26 contending that both the Republican and Democrat candidates violated a state election law. According to Section 8-13-1356 of the S.C. Code of Laws, political candidates must file their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI, an income disclosure form) for the previous calendar year along with their declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination.
Both Kimpson and Shuman listed 2013 on their SEIs, and Thornton was the only candidate to fill out the form correctly. The same law got 250 candidates kicked off the ballot in 2012, and though Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill this year attempting to mitigate the effects of this legislation, those changes had not yet taken effect because they had yet to be approved by the Department of Justice.
If the lawsuit is successful, Thornton may be declared the winner of the election. She would be the only Libertarian State Legislator in the country, and one of the higher ranking Libertarian politicians in any state. There are many Libertarians nationwide who have been elected to local offices – such as Municipal Court Judges, School Board members and Water Board members – and these are positions where they can make a direct impact and gain more support for the party.
The first Libertarian candidate was elected to a state legislature in Alaska in 1976, and he became a popular politician, even winning 15% of the votes in a gubernatorial election. Thornton is clearly in a “progressive” area of the state, where Robert Ford served for nearly 40 years and where the Democrat candidate to be his successor won almost four times as many votes as all the other candidates combined.
The Libertarian Party has been in the spotlight in the past few years, and if Thornton wins the lawsuit and goes on to become a legislator, she could become the standard that other
people look to when deciding whether or not to vote Libertarian. She would provide a tangible representation of how Libertarians can be expected to vote and act in any elected office, and while this would invite a type of scrutiny the party has not been exposed to, it would also move Libertarians closer to an even playing field.
Though the thought of Libertarian Senators and Congressmen is an appealing one to liberty-minded voters, the Libertarian Party must build its base by winning local elections and then moving on to state and national ones. It holds a number of local positions, but if Alexandra Thornton wins her lawsuit and both she and other party members use the victory wisely, she
could help other party members to attain state positions. This could be a very beneficial victory for the Libertarian Party statewide, and later nationwide.
Listen to the exclusive interview with Chairman Jeremy Walters:
Christopher Greene of AMTV interviews Ben Swann at LPAC 2013.
In a question and answer session on Friday, Lt. Colonel Bill Connor discussed the history and geopolitical importance of the current situation in Syria. Connor served in Kuwait twice after the Gulf war in the early 1990s, and won the Bronze Star for his efforts in Afghanistan. He also served in Sinai and Egypt on peacekeeping duties which gives him unique insight into the complexities regarding the middle east. Connor gave his analysis regarding Syria and also addressed recent claims by John McCain and Lindsey Graham supporting the attack in Syria, as well as detailing important facts about the war unknown to most Americans. He also said that he was considering running for Lindsey Graham’s Senate seat, but had not yet decided whether it was the right course of action.
Connor said it was plausible that the rebel forces were behind the sarin gas attacks blamed on Assad’s regime, because the US does not currently have all the facts about the situation and it would be a much more logical course of action for the rebels than Assad. “If Assad did this, he’d be the stupidest military on the face of the earth,” he said, later continuing “If I’m a rebel commander, I would love for the whole would to be on my side against Assad.” He noted that both Assad and the Russian government had alleged that the attacks were perpetrated by rebels.
The Lt. Colonel also described a tape in which a high level Syrian official seeing the gas attack asking what was going on. “Now what this tells me is that probably Assad and those guys didn’t know.” That means, he said, that one of two situations occurred. Either it was the rebels, or it was a lower commander acting against orders. Connor admits that he does not have the same intel as Congress, but wanted to tell his audience that he has many concerns about a strike on Syria.
The rebel forces, Connor said, are very divided and diverse. Al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood fighters undeniably make up a significant portion of the forces in the country, but they’re not fighting for its freedom, they’re fighting to set up a caliphate, another Taliban-like Islamist – more specifically Sunni – extremist government. Assad, in contrast, is Allawi, a minority sect in both Syria and the Middle East, considered “heretical” by the Sunnis. Connor said that although Assad is a brutal dictator, he still protects religious minorities like Christians because his own sect is considered little better than Christians.
The Free Syrian Army, though, seems to be a secular organization run by a military official. It seems that the Free Syrian Army has been attempting to protect churches and Christians in the country, but they have been slaughtered by “fellow rebel” Al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood fighters. It’s possible that arming and supporting the Free Syrian Army via covert operations could lead to a positive outcome of the Syrian Civil War.
In his discussion, Connor also countered arguments made by John McCain and Lindsey Graham as they supported the idea of an attack. Quite simply, John McCain was shown the “rebel forces” by the Saudis, who favor intervention. Military personnel see and deal with what’s going on at the ground level, while politicians are “wined and dined,” and shown what people want them to see. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Turkey’s leader is helping to train Al Qaida forces because he is far more fundamentalist than the West realizes.
Regarding Graham’s Iran argument, he said it was “a separate issue in some ways,” but that “The fact that the Saudis are bankrolling all this makes it almost more worrisome.” The Saudis are interested in putting a Sunni radical in charge of Syria, but Syria has sarin gas. A radical ruler who supports terrorism – as the Saudis do – getting a hold of large quantities of sarin gas is a very dangerous situation.
Finally, he detailed the reasons that air strikes alone cannot be seen as an appropriate form of intervention. People know the air strikes are coming and can prepare accordingly, so they accomplish relatively little. When Clinton bombed Serbia and Afghanistan, it made no difference in the outcome of the situation or force one side to give in. These plans, in addition to military leaks, will simply give people who have WMDs the time to hide them, which will make this “a very silly operation.”
The operation will have geopolitical consequences, though. Russia provided the air defense systems for Syria, so they will automatically be involved if any American planes are shot down, especially if people are taken prisoner.
Bill Connor’s detailed analysis highlighted the problems with US intervention in Syria, from goal to execution. Simply toppling a dictator isn’t enough when he will merely be replaced by another dictator whose intention is to exterminate minority populations. Bombing campaigns achieve nothing without land-based military intervention. There are possible beneficial courses of actions America could take, but this is unlikely with its Saudi connections.
It has been a busy week for David Foster. Foster and his company, just one week ago, began beta testing a website and soon to be released app called “Ghetto Tracker”. The name alone created a firestorm of criticism from national media outlets as well as local broadcast TV stations. Everyone from CNN and MSNBC to the Huffington Post, to dozens of local broadcast TV affiliates have come out strongly against the website and app that aims to keep visitors to any city away from the “bad parts of town”.
The headline on the Huffington Post: “‘Ghetto Tracker,’ App That Helps Rich Avoid Poor, Is As Bad As It Sounds”
CNN’s piece about the app states,
“The word choice was far from the only problem critics had with Ghetto Tracker, which featured a stock photo of a smiling white family on its homepage. Many called it out, accused it of being racist and classist. Ghetto Tracker’s ratings of neighborhoods weren’t based on any hard crime data, just the impressions and biases of regular people.”
Foster’s reaction, he pulled the site down and renamed it “The Good Part of Town”. David Holmes with Pando Daily went after the app writing,
“It’s pretty detrimental to society when we reinforce the idea that poor or crime-heavy areas are places to be categorically avoided or shamed. As if to assume that every person who lives in an area with comparatively high crime or poverty is a criminal, or that these areas are devoid of culture or positivity,”
By Saturday Foster had reversed course and reinstated the original name ‘Ghetto Tracker’ because of what the owner of the site says has been an incredible outpouring of support.
“When we looked at the percentage of positive feedback versus the little bit of negative. We are not trying to be insensitive but in reality if it offends you then just don’t go there. That is not our intention. Our intention is to help people,” says Foster who talked exclusively with Ben Swann via Skype.
Foster has received dozens of requests for interviews from the national networks and local affiliates nationwide but came to BenSwann.com to share his side of the story.
“I refused to do a single interview until I had talked to you first because I know what is going to happen. They are going to get me on there, they are going to spin it, they are probably going to cut it up and make it something that it isn’t and I don’t want to deal with that.”
So where does the name “Ghetto Tracker” come from? Foster says that he created the app in response to his wife having to travel often for her job and not knowing what parts of town she would feel safest in.
“If we would call this app anything, we looked at slum tracker we looked at all these different names. No matter what we would have called it, as soon as those areas were highlighted and people thought that we were focusing in on the ghetto, we would have been in this situation anyway, regardless of the name,” says Foster.
To be clear, “Ghetto Tracker” does not attempt to correlate crime data in order to determine less “safe” parts of a community. Instead, the information in the app is completely uploaded by users. Foster says what he is doing is similar to the ratings system for sites like Hotels.com.
“It is completely created by users, all the feedback. Like if somebody goes into an area, like rating a hotel, if they are in an area and they feel like its not a decent area, they can mark it in there, make a comment and say this is what I experienced in this area.” claims Foster.
Swann: “You do not feel that the name, and obviously not because you have gone back to “Ghetto Tracker”. You do not feel that the name is insensitive in any way?
Foster: “I don’t and I think that we are past that as people, I would like to think we are. That we would not call something for what it really is. What is another word you could use? Slums? Skidrow? Bad part of town? I don’t know what a word that would appease people would be.”
Swann: “When people criticize this they say, ‘Well, this promotes racism, this promotes kind of a classist system where you are keeping wealthy people away from poor people by saying ghetto tracker. Here’s how you avoid “the ghetto”, here’s how you avoid poor people’. What do you say to the claim that you are keeping people apart?”
Foster: “I am in Tallahassee, Florida and if I was going to be traveling up north, I have no idea where to go up there. I could get on Hotels.com and book a hotel and end up in a questionable area and like I said, its all based on user feedback so its just people helping people.” “You really don’t have any other way to get that information and to know what kind of an area you are going into. It is a real issue.”
Swann: “What about the claim that some people would make that by using the term “ghetto” you are essentially labeling people who live in those areas as being less than those who do not?”
Foster: “Personally I feel that if they have that issue with that word, that is their issue. See, I don’t feel like there’s an issue with that word. The actual definition of the word, and I looked it up is ‘an impoverished, neglected or otherwise disadvantaged residential area of a city usually troubled by a disproportionately large amount of crime.’ So I don’t see that as labeling people, I see that as labeling an area.”
Most interestingly, Foster claims that for every one or two negative emails he has received over the past week, he has received 30 positive ones. Part of why he claims the “righteous indignation” surrounding this app isn’t coming from the public but is completely created by media.
“I think it is all being propagated by the media and this is why I contacted you. I think the biggest injustice being done to the American people today is the media.” “Right now we are facing a potential war in Syria. There are some real issues in this country, things we need to be dealing with, things we need to be having a real conversation about.” says Foster who goes on to insist that in a free market, no one is forced to use his site or app,
“In my opinion if I were to see a web site, like this and I didn’t want to use it, I just wouldn’t use it. I wouldn’t be complaining about it. I wouldn’t see it as class warfare. I wouldn’t be looking at it like they have ulterior motives. I would just say ‘That isn’t a site I want to use, next.’ But they are putting so much focus.”
After our interview, I was contacted by David Foster who explains that his desire is to promote growth and opportunity in impoverished neighborhoods and sent me this statement claiming he will donate 20% of all proceeds to improving inner city neighborhoods.
“We have decided that if and when GhettoTracker makes money…we are going to donate 20% of all profits to non-profit organizations that help neighborhoods improve. We feel that this could really raise awareness to a problem that people would otherwise ignore. The first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge there IS a problem. We also want to educate the US population about the ridiculous overspending on wars overseas. If we took the amount spent for a single day of war, and donated it to non-profit organizations that help the hungry and homeless here in our own country, we could almost eliminate it. Please connect with us on our social media channels to get updates:”
Ben Swann joins Tyrel Ventura on Buzzsaw to talk about truth in media and the important role alternative media has played in possibly preventing a war with Syria.
Find Buzzsaw on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Buzzsaw/315063551949301
Visit Buzzsaw on The Lip here: http://thelip.tv/buzzsaw/
We Are Change CT catches up with Ben Swann at the Defense Of Liberty PAC barbeque. Ben talks about the Truth In Media project and what it will look like.
Swann has become a folk hero of sorts to a number of more libertarian-minded political activists and media watchdogs for being one of the only reporters to ask President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign about a “kill list” that was targeting Americans for assassination. He said the project was about giving people “facts” concerning important topics not covered often on television stations such as monetary policy, civil liberties, the drug war, and foreign policy.
“(It’s) an attempt to bring truth to media, through streaming sites, through local news stations, across the Internet,” Swann said. “When I say truth…..” Click Here to read more.
Jordan Page, liberty rockstar, talks with Ben Swann one on one about why he supports the Truth in Media project.
Hear why Jordan is so passionate about Truth in Media and check out his upcoming album at www.jordanpagemusic.com
Why Alex Fidel supports the Truth In Media Project
My name is Alex Fidel of FreethoughtMedia.org I support Ben Swann’s Truth in Media Project because the time to take back our liberty is now and putting the truth in peoples’ laps is key to get them to act. The only way to do that is to reach outward rather than talking amongst ourselves, so he can bridge people over from the mainstream and show them the truth and break down the bubble of a reality that the media has created for them to perpetuate the lies of the state, corporations, and central banks.
Ben clearly sets up a definite contrast between truth & the mainstream media’s lies. That does a very powerful thing, because a person’s first view of Reality Check or Full Disclosure will hit them, and then when they go back to the mainstream media, they may never want to watch it again with such contrast. Whether it be folks like me, the stations I’m on (locally, KKSM which contrasts against mainstream music radio or LRN.FM which goes nationally against mainstream statist political talk stations), various independent podcasts/radio stations & videocasts/TV stations (Adam Kokesh, Cindy Sheehan, Lew Rockwell, Free Talk Live, School Sucks & many more awesome diverse shows on LRN, WeAreChange, NextNewsNetwork, RT, Press TV, The Ron Paul Channel), and many, many others, we’re all a part of this big alternative media push, but not all of us can have as big of an outward reach as Ben Swann, especially with his professional old-school style investigative truth-telling journalism that is so lacking. He takes on the ‘professionals’ at their own game. There are a lot of people like him in these independent affiliates like Fox 19, like the reporter here in San Diego that is bringing light to Michael Hastings, but Ben has a special talent and drive to seek truth as well as break it down in a manner that makes it easy for the average person to understand and open up their parameters to issues they may not have even thought of like the morality of war, the unintended consequences of our nonsensical foreign policy (like funding al Qaeda), the War on Drugs, government subsidies to big agra farms & Monsanto, Agenda 21, civil liberties, red light cameras, and more. Once people are interested in issues beyond the superficial limited left/right spectrum that the mainstream forces down their throat, liberty will rise. And liberty is rising.
Support Ben Swann’s Truth in Media project at BenSwann.com and http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/4… It’s about more than money. Show people the project even after the Kickstarter expires. The point is to show the contrast between actual truth-telling journalism and the superficial mainstream media so that people can see the contrast and then drop their viewership from these mainstream media organizations.
Freethought Radio airs every Monday from 6PM-9PM PST on KKSM AM 1320 – The Radio Revolution in San Diego county California. The podcast is syndicated on LRN.fm – The Liberty Radio Network. Hosted & produced by Alex Fidel. KKSM is comprised of student staff from Palomar College, and has a wide variety of different music & talk shows. LRN.fm is your source for the best liberty-oriented audio content. Freethought offers a wide selection of innovative heavy metal & rock music that tends to get ignored by mainstream radio stations.
Brian Engelman of The New American Media interviews Ben Swann. They discuss a wide range off issues including the NSA and Edward Snowden.
“Ben Swann is the former Fox19 TV news man who everyone’s talking about. Ben is the only man to basically ask Obama to his face “Why do you kill Americans without a trial” and live to tell the story.
Ben and Neema Vedadi yack about the sorry state of mainstream media, where independent media is headed, and the future of liberty in America and the world. It’s more of a conversation than an interview, and it’s fairly darned amazing…”
Read more and listen to the interview here:
David Seaman and I discuss the role of a journalist and whether or not bias is a part of the job. Plus, why the Truth in Media project is so important and why David says he is personally becoming a backer.
Visit this link to listen to the interview: