Tag Archives: Rand Paul

Trump’s Fed Nominee Advocated Abolishing Cash

Trump Federal Reserve Board of Governors nominee Marvin Goodfriend reportedly advocated on two different occasions the elimination of cash from circulation in an effort to prevent individuals from hoarding cash in the event that the Federal Reserve were to push a negative interest rate policy during a financial crisis.

The Mises Institute notes that Goodfriend first floated the idea in a 1999 paper called “The Case for Unencumbering Interest Rate Policy at the Zero Bound” and again promoted the concept at a 2016 Federal Reserve conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Goodfriend reportedly said that the Fed needs the option to push interest rates negative, which would cause consumers to pay fees in order to keep their money in savings accounts, and that cash should be eliminated to prevent banking consumers from pulling their money out of banks to avoid paying those fees.

Bloomberg notes that Goodfriend suggested a few theories for how to phase out cash. He floated eliminating large bills to make cash less convenient. He suggested that the Fed charge banks and/or consumers fees for issuing paper currency. He advocated that the issuance of cash be taxed such that consumers only receive 90 cents when withdrawing a dollar. He also called for abolishing cash outright. The Wall Street Journal notes that Goodfriend additionally suggested that cash bills should contain a magnetic strip so they can be scanned and tracked as they move through circulation.

The Federalist’s Connor Boyack wrote, “From Sweden to India and Venezuela to Australia, governments around the world have already taken steps to eliminate cash from their economy. This is particularly attractive in countries like China, with a government that wants to be able to track its citizens at all times.”

Cash purchases are notoriously difficult for regulators to monitor.

In a January Senate confirmation hearing, Goodfriend downplayed his seriousness in advocating the policy.

“I wrote a paper in 1999 for a Federal Reserve System conference which asked what would happen if interest rates went to zero, and what could the Federal Reserve do. I didn’t propose that, that was an academic paper showing what could be done….It was not a proposal. It was an emergency matter we considered as a matter of thinking about these things before anyone ever imagined anything could happen like that,” he said, omitting any mention of his 2016 speech on the subject.

While Goodfriend’s nomination enjoys the support of most Senate Republicans, it has stalled so far in the face of opposition from Senate Democrats and Republican U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul.

Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, who supports Goodfriend, said, “Thank goodness there will be someone at the Fed with the foresight to realize that world needs to start thinking about how central banks can best deal with the inevitable next deep financial crisis. And negative interest rate policy is the best idea out there by a wide margin; hopefully we won’t need it anytime soon. Still, I believe that within a decade, all the world’s major central banks and treasuries are likely to have taken the simple steps necessary to create the foundations for effective negative interest rate policy in deep recessions or financial crises.”

The Mises Institute’s Tho Bishop, who questioned whether Goodfriend is the “worst Federal Reserve nominee of all time,” wrote, “Instead of correcting course from the interventionism of the Greenspan-Bernanke-Yellen, Goodfriend is doubling down on the same fundamental misunderstanding on the role of interest rates in an economy. Rather than a macroeconomic policy tool that can be used by central planners to speed up and slow down an economy, interest rates are instead important market prices coordinating the supply and demand of money on the market.”

Rand Paul Warns AUMF Gives the President Unlimited War Powers

Washington, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) publicly rebuked the recently-proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), warning about the bill’s potential dangers and how its passage could further codify war-making powers in the hands of the executive branch. In an op-ed published Monday, Paul explained how passage of the AUMF, Congress is abdicating authority to prevent unlimited war, and is instead going to codify the “unacceptable, unconstitutional status quo.”

“It is clear upon reading the AUMF, put forward by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, that it gives nearly unlimited power to this or any other president to be at war whenever he or she wants, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority,” Paul wrote in an op-ed in the American Conservative.

“Under this bill, Congress could only disapprove of war, turning the Constitution on its head,” Paul claimed. “Even worse, any resolution of disapproval could be vetoed, meaning two thirds of Congress would need to disapprove of a war, rather than a majority to approve of one. That’s a huge, unwise, and unconstitutional change.”

[Related: Civil Liberties Advocates: Proposed AUMF Gives President “Blank Check” War Powers]

Sen. Paul declared that passage of a proposed new AUMF would serve to further remove Congress from the equation in terms of declaring war, and that this combats the checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent consolidation of power within the executive branch.

“That isn’t an AUMF. That isn’t Congress reclaiming its constitutional duties. That’s a complete rewriting of the role of the executive and of the constitutional separation of powers.”

The Kentucky senator noted that the Founding Fathers knew of the tendency of the executive branch to launch wars, so they built in checks to prevent it. Currently, the War Powers Act is supposed to limit the use of force by the executive, with the exception of a national emergency or an imminent attack, but rarely does so in the modern era. As Paul wrote, “For some time now, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war. The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the president says so.”

Paul warned that “If this AUMF is passed, Congress will have chosen to make itself irrelevant on the issue of war.”

Read the full op-ed by Sen. Rand Paul here.

Rand Paul Grills State Sec. Nominee Pompeo on Foreign Policy

Washington, D.C. — During the nomination hearing for Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, on April 12, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is the only Republican senator that has publicly announced opposition to President Trump’s nomination of CIA director Mike Pompeo to become Secretary of State, told Pompeo that his nomination doesn’t appear to align with the foreign policy view that Trump outlined during his presidential campaign.

“[Trump] says the Iraq war was the single worst decision ever made. So, once again, I’m concerned that you won’t be supporting the president,” Paul said to Pompeo. “That you will be influencing him in a way that I think his inclinations are actually better than many of his advisors. That the Iraq war was a mistake that we need to come home from Afghanistan.”

“He was against being involved in Syria at many times in his career,” Paul said, noting Trump’s previous public statements that implied opposition to “another Iraq war, bombing Syria without permission.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375609403376144384

“So, these are the advice you will give and I guess that’s my biggest concern with your nomination is that I don’t think it reflects the millions of people who voted for President Trump who actually voted for him because they thought it’d be different. That it wouldn’t be the traditional bipartisan consensus to bomb everywhere and be everywhere around the world. So, that’s my main concern and I just want to make sure that that’s loud and clear to everyone that is my concern,” Paul repeated.

Paul also took issue with Pompeo’s belief that the President has the authority to bomb Assad’s forces or installations without congressional approval.

“Thanks for your testimony and thanks for going through this grueling enterprise and your willingness to serve the country. You discussed with Senator Kaine a little bit about whether or not the President has the authority to bomb Assad’s forces or installations in Syria and you mention historically, well we have done it in the past,” Paul said.

“I don’t think that’s a complete enough answer,” the senator added. “I mean my question would be do you think it’s constitutional? Does the President have the constitutional authority to bomb Assad’s forces? Does he have the authority absent congressional action to bomb Assad’s forces or installations?” Paul asked.

“Senator, as I — I think I said this to Senator Kaine, I’m happy to repeat my view on this. Those decisions are weighted. Every place we can, we should work alongside Congress to get that, but yes, I believe the President has the domestic authority to do that. I don’t think — I don’t think that has been disputed by Republicans or Democrats throughout an extended period of time,” Pompeo asserted.

Paul argued against Pompeo’s assertion, stating, “Actually it was disputed mostly by our founding fathers who believed they gave that authority to Congress and actually they’re uniformly opposed to the executive branch having that power. In fact, Madison wrote very specifically.”

“The executive branch is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, we have with studied care vested that authority into the legislature,” Paul added. “So, the fact that we have in the past done this doesn’t make it constitutional and I would say that I take objection to the idea that the president can go to war when he wants, where he wants.”

Paul’s continued his questioning of Pompeo by asking, “With regard to Afghanistan, some have argued that it’s time to get out of Afghanistan. What do you think?”

Watch below:

h/t RCP

Mitch McConnell Announces Bill to Legalize Hemp Nationwide

Washington, D.C.— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced he will introduce a new bill on Monday that would legalize hemp, a non-psychoactive relative of marijuana, as an agricultural product. The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

In addition to legalization, the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 would remove the product from the federal government’s schedule of controlled substances, while also authorizing it to be sold as an agricultural commodity.

“Hemp has played a foundational role in Kentucky’s agriculture heritage, and I believe that it can be an important part of our future,” McConnell said in a statement. “It’s now time to take the final step and make this a legal crop,” McConnell said, according to an Associated Press report. Kentucky is currently conducting a pilot program through the Department of Agriculture to grow the plant.

Industrial hemp is a specific variety of cannabis plant grown for industrial and commercial uses of its fiber which contains almost no THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis that alters an individual’s mental state upon ingestion. Its fibers can be used to make numerous products including rope, cloth and paper, while the oil can be used in cosmetics, food, paper and numerous other products.

[RELATED: Alaska Legislature Passes Bill Legalizing Industrial Hemp Production]

In fact, industrial hemp has the potential to replace many of the fossil fuel-based products currently used, as it can be utilized in a reported 25,000 products— perhaps indicating why a substance that has no psychoactive value is treated as a controlled substance by the U.S. federal government.

As a report, entitled Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes, “hemp is also from the same species of plant, Cannabis sativa, as marijuana. As a result, production in the United States is restricted due to hemp’s association with marijuana, and the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports…”

The legislation would also allow states to make their own laws regarding industrial hemp production by removing federal restrictions, while the Department of Agriculture would provide oversight over states’ production programs, as well as issue competitive grants to researchers developing uses and cultivation methods for the crop.

According to a report by the Washington Post:

McConnell has been an advocate of hemp cultivation for at least four years. In 2014, he backed a provision in that year’s farm bill to allow for a hemp cultivation pilot program in his home state, and the following year he sponsored a hemp legalization bill introduced by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul has played a central role in persuading McConnell to become a proponent for the hemp industry.

With McConnell now a lead sponsor and significant bipartisan support secured for hemp legalization, the effort could find new success this year — although McConnell announced no immediate plans to bring the measure to the Senate floor.

Rand Paul: Deep State Exists, Uses Intelligence for Political Purposes

Washington, D.C.— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said Tuesday during an appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show podcast that the term “deep state” accurately describes how an unelected bureaucracy of national security officials in positions of power exert influence without Congressional oversight.

“Absolutely, there is a deep state, because the deep state is the intelligence agencies that do not have oversight,” he said. “Only eight people in Congress know what they’re doing, and traditionally, those eight people have been a rubber stamp to let the intelligence communities do whatever they want. There is no skeptic among the eight people that are supposedly overseeing the intelligence community.”

The “Gang of Eight”  that Paul referenced is made up of the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate, along with the chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees, and are the select few members of Congress with real-time access to America’s most sensitive intelligence.

[RELATED: Reality Check: Ex CIA Director Says U.S. Meddles for a ‘Good Cause’]

Paul pointed out that he believed Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others used intelligence collected “without any judicial warrants” for political purposes, in addition to “try to bring Trump down.”

“John Brennan and James Clapper were doing whatever the hell they wanted, without any judicial warrants, and I think there were numerous people in the Obama administration who were using intelligence — one, to try to bring Trump down; but two, also, they were using it for political purposes,” he said. “And this is very, very worrisome.”

Paul evidenced his point by noting Brennan’s politicized tweet over the weekend calling Trump a corrupt demagogue, and promising that America would “triumph” over him.

“This is the real problem,” Paul said. “And [founding father James] Madison warned about this from the beginning. Madison said that men are not angels. And all you gotta do is look at John Brennan’s tweet to know that he’s not an angel. And listen to James Clapper lying to the Senate about whether they were spying on Americans.”

Paul previously tweeted that Brennan’s attacks on the “Bill of Rights” and “freedoms of every American” while running the CIA were “disgraceful.”

Further solidifying Paul’s point about “men are not angels,” Samantha Power, former UN Ambassador under President Obama, issued an ominous tweet: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Many took this tweet by Powers as an implicit threat on behalf of Brennan. After strong social media backlash following her tweet, Powers sent a follow-up tweet that aimed to walk back the implied threat she had first issued.

Rand Paul’s commentary starts at roughly 21:30 in the podcast below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E7BPxqTitg

Rand Paul Labels ex-CIA Director Brennan “Disgraceful” for Politicized Tirade

Washington, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday took aim at former CIA Director John Brennan, who on Friday night stated that Trump will go down in history as a “disgraced demagogue.” Paul responded that Brennan’s attacks on the “Bill of Rights” and “freedoms of every American” while running the agency were “disgraceful.”

Brennan’s tweet exposed the politicized nature of the former CIA Director:

“This man had the power to search every American’s records without a warrant,” Paul tweeted Sunday. “What’s disgraceful is attacking the Bill of Rights and the freedom of every American.”

As Fox News reported, this is not the first time Paul has called Brennan out for his lack of respect for the rule of law; in 2013, the Kentucky senator undertook a 13-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate to block Brennan’s nomination by President Obama to head the CIA, questioning whether the administration believed it was legal to launch a drone strike on an American citizen on U.S. soil.

Then, only 18 months later, Paul was part of a bipartisan effort to remove Brennan as CIA Director in the wake of revelations that the agency had spied on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers and lied to Congress about it.

Paul’s recent criticism of Brennan comes in response to Brennan’s tweet about Trump, which was likely prompted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions firing FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe two days before his retirement and eligibility for a full pension.

Despite the suggestion of impropriety in the firing of McCabe, Sessions issued a statement that noted the firing of McCabe was based upon a report regarding McCabe’s conduct from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that was sent to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

“The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions,” read Sessions’ statement.

Perhaps even more revealing was former UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s tweet in regards to Brennan’s tweet, where she claimed, “it’s not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Some social media users took the opportunity to remind the public that investigative journalist Michael Hastings was working on a piece about then-CIA Director Brennan when he died under suspicious circumstances.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/975421322732847104

After backlash followed her commentary, Powers sent a follow-up tweet that aimed to spin the authoritarian nature of her initial tweet.

In an interview with Fox News, former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino took issue with Brennan’s overwhelming hubris.

“Brennan’s worried about how he claimed— under oath, by the way— that he had no information about the [Trump] dossier, yet went up and briefed people on Capitol Hill,” he said.

“Stay off the air, go get a lawyer and pipe down. You’re in a lot more trouble than you think you are. You’re hubris is overwhelming right now,” Bongino said, noting the unmaskings reportedly undertaken by Power and claiming that the two participated “in the largest government conspiracy to spy on a presidential candidate in modern American history.”

Rand Paul Announces He’ll Oppose Trump’s State Dept. & CIA Nominees

Washington, D.C.— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced on Wednesday that he would oppose President Trump’s nominees to head the State Department and CIA, potentially impeding their path to Senate confirmation.

“I will oppose both Pompeo’s nomination and Haspel’s nomination,” Paul said.

Trump announced the firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday, and nominated CIA Director Mike Pompeo, an aggressive foreign policy hawk, to serve as his new Secretary of State – while nominating Gina Haspel, the CIA’s deputy director, to serve as the new head of the CIA after Pompeo moves to the State Department.

Paul said he was “perplexed” how Trump could nominate Pompeo given his support for regime change in Iraq as well as support and advocacy for regime change in Iran. The libertarian leaning Republican senator said Pompeo’s support of regime change contradicts the skepticism Trump expressed on the campaign trail toward foreign interventions and regime change.

“It perplexes me that he is now nominating someone for secretary of State who has advocated and pushed for regime change in Iran,” Paul said.

Haspel, who oversaw the U.S. torture program at a secret CIA prison and later destroyed the recorded evidence, is a lighting rod for controversy given her intimate participation in the torture of individuals suspected by the US of being connected to terrorism. Paul noted his opposition for Haspel’s nomination due to her role in the Bush-era CIA torture program at black site prisons.

“My opposition to her is over her direct participation in interrogation and her gleeful enjoyment of someone being tortured,” said Paul.

“I find it just amazing that anyone would consider having this woman as the head of the CIA,” Paul said. “Certainly, there is a career officer at the CIA who did not directly participate in waterboarding that we can nominate,” he continued. “Rewarding someone who was in charge of something so heinous is a really big mistake.”

CBS News reports that Paul’s opposition to Haspel’s nomination could put her potential confirmation as head of the CIA in jeopardy if all 49 Democratic Senators voted against Haspel – with only one other Republican, aside from Paul, needing to vote no to block her nomination. Paul did not rule out a filibuster to prevent Pompeo from being confirmed.

Sen. Rand Paul Advocates Trump’s Proposed Military Parade, With One Condition

Washington, D.C.— Earlier this week, President Donald Trump called for a military parade in Washington, D.C., reportedly inspired by the French Bastille Day parade he watched in Paris this past summer. While this news has driven some pundits into a frenzy regarding Trump’s penchant for a perceived glorification of militarism, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has come out in support of the idea— but with certain conditions.

Paul brought an insightful perspective forth in an op-ed for Fox News, where he declared his conditional support for a military parade – but with one major provision: the U.S. “declare victory in Afghanistan, bring home our 14,000 troops and hold a victory parade.”

Paul wrote:

A military parade in the nation’s capital? The last military parade in Washington was in 1991, after our victory in the first Iraq War.

Though the martial image of high-stepping soldiers is not one I tend to associate with our nation’s Founders’ distrust of a standing Army, I’m not against a victory celebration. So I propose we declare victory in Afghanistan, bring home our 14,000 troops and hold a victory parade.

We defeated the enemy in Afghanistan. We killed or captured the terrorists who planned, plotted, or aided in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We killed the ringleader, Usama bin Laden. We disrupted the terrorists’ camps where they plotted and trained. We dislodged the Taliban government that aided and abetted bin Laden.

We just don’t know how to appreciate a good thing. A big part of our foreign policy failures is not knowing when and how to declare victory. So, why not a parade?  Bring the troops home and declare the victory that should have been declared years ago.

The only reason victory is elusive in Afghanistan is that presidents continue to have an impossible definition of victory. If victory is creating a nation where no real nation has ever existed, then no victory will ever occur.

If victory requires the disparate tribes and regional factions of Afghanistan to have more allegiance to a regime in Kabul than to their local tribal leaders, then victory will never come.

We spend about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. When quizzed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, undersecretaries of Defense and State could not answer the most rudimentary of questions concerning the war.

How many Taliban fighters do we face? Blank faces for an answer. What percentage of the Taliban are unrepentant terrorists unwilling to negotiate? Blank faces again. 

The Taliban now control a significant amount of Afghanistan’s real estate. Are the Taliban open to negotiating, considering that they appear to be winning?  Blank faces again, but with perhaps a touch of remorse, knowing that there really is no possible military solution in Afghanistan.

The neocons are unaccustomed to nuance in victory. They seem to have learned some lesson about unconditional and total surrender when America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II with the surrender of Japan, and they seem unwilling or unable to accept any other form of victory.

So, by all means, a parade – yes!  As long as it is a victory parade heralding an end to America’s longest war.

[RELATED: WATCH: Senator Rand Paul Calls Out Government Surveillance Power on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert]

Although his moderate form of non-interventionism is not quite on par with his father Ron Paul’s complete renunciation of the U.S. as an imperialist power, Rand Paul is certainly unique in his foreign policy positions, when compared with the standard neo-conservative thinking regarding foreign interventions and “nation building” that has come to dominate both the Republican and Democratic foreign policy establishment.

WATCH: Senator Rand Paul Calls Out Government Surveillance Power on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

New York City — On Wednesday night’s airing of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, host Steven Colbert asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) if he thought the FISA memo, which allegedly details the FBI using opposition research — funded by a major donor of GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, and subsequently paid for by the Clinton campaign — to manipulate the FISA court into allowing surveillance of President Trump’s campaign staff, should be released to the public.

“You said the Bob Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, and you think it is a distraction of Congress’s time,” Colbert said.

“Do you think it should be ended- do you think he should be gotten out of there? Do you think they should get rid of Rosenstein and release the memo, and just blow the whole thing up and forget it ever happened?” Colbert asked.

Paul then took the opportunity to express his concerns, while enlightening Colbert on the danger in allowing secretive intelligence agencies to monitor the private communications of every American — without a warrant signed by a judge — in light of “bias” in the intelligence community, clearly referring to the FBI and DOJ, as allegedly implicated in the now-released FISA memo.

[RELATED: Nunes Memo Released]

“I’m concerned. My biggest concern is over something that Madison said at the beginning of our country, he said that ‘men are not angels’ and that’s why we need more oversight of government,” Paul said.

“Our intelligence community has the authority to listen to every phone call. Everyone’s phone calls could be listened to if they wanted to. Everyone in your e-mails can be tracked, every one of your phone… who you call and how long you speak can be tracked, every bank transaction can be tracked,” Paul explained.

Paul went on to note that human nature can lead to potential “bias” in the “intelligence community,” and pointed out the critical need for “checks and balances” in the form of “a judge and a warrant.”

“I think because men are not angels and women aren’t either, that there can be bias that can enter into the intelligence community, so we have to be very, very careful that someone gives them a check and balance and that check and a balance should be a judge and a warrant, so one of the things, you know, I fought with over this collection of FISA data, we should go to a judge to get to that,” Paul stated.

Paul then explained that he was “concerned” that Mueller had gone beyond a “Russia Collusion” investigation. The Senator, who has previously called the investigation a “witchhunt” – invoked the indictment of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, which was not for colluding with Russians, but for not being truthful about “what was recorded on the phone call.”

“I’m concerned that we give too much power to a prosecutor who was supposed to be going after Russian collusion,” the Senator cautioned.

“So far he’s gotten somewhat over. He recorded General Flynn and then got him to say something inconsistent with what was recorded on the phone call,” Paul reasoned.

“Think about it from a personal perspective, if I have a thousand phone calls of Stephen Colbert, what I could learn? And then I can interview you, and if you say anything inconsistent with what you said on your private phone calls, I could put you in jail.” Paul explained.

Following the recent release of the memo, Paul issued the following statement on Friday:

“While I applaud the release of this memo, I also call for Congress to take immediate action to help prevent such behavior in the future. It is imperative it start by listening to Americans who have expressed outrage over its disregard for the Fourth Amendment and reexamining the powers it reauthorized right before we learned of the memo. Continuing to ignore the Constitution will only guarantee that others fall victim to government abusing its domestic surveillance powers.”

Watch Sen. Paul explain the dangers of an intelligence apparatus given vast power to spy on Americans beginning at 15:10 in the video below.

Rand Paul Declines to Endorse Any Candidate in GOP Primary Race

After dropping out of the 2016 presidential race Wednesday, Rand Paul’s campaign declared that he will endorse the chosen GOP nominee, but he will not endorse any of his former rivals while they are still in the running.

During a conference call with reporters following Paul’s announcement, his top campaign strategist Doug Stafford said that the Senator from Kentucky made the decision to drop out in part because he was likely to be excluded from the next GOP debate Saturday night.

In the Iowa Caucus on Monday, Paul came in fifth place with one delegate, behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with eight delegates, Donald Trump with seven, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also with seven, and Ben Carson with three.

Stafford said Paul has no plans to endorse any of his former competitors before one is chosen to be the GOP nominee. While former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee made a similar decision when he ended his presidential campaign following Monday’s caucus, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum announced that he was endorsing Rubio when he ended his campaign Wednesday evening.

Paul announced Wednesday morning that he intends to focus on running for re-election as a Senator in Kentucky. “Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over,” he said. “I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term.”

While Paul had initially counted on receiving the support of those who backed his father Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 elections, Stafford said that the “Ron Paul movement” still exists, but that “voters shift from time and what’s most important to them is hard to capture.” 

Stafford also noted that having Trump in the race changed the dynamic because it “took all the oxygen out of the room,” and made it “very difficult to have what you believe is a stronger message and a stronger candidate but you can’t break through because celebrity became the largest thing.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Johnson: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant Voters Alienated by Iowa Results

Former two-term New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson, who is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president in 2016, issued a statement on the results of the Democratic and Republican presidential caucuses in Iowa on Monday.

To no one’s surprise, the Republican who emerged from the Iowa Caucuses did so under a banner of social intolerance and carpet bombing,” said Johnson of GOP winner and U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz.

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton narrowly beat U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. “Just as predictably, the Democrats endorsed a candidate who has never seen a federal program, regulation or expenditure she doesn’t like,” added Johnson.

[RELATED: DONEGAN: If GOP Debate Stage Can Fit 11, Let Third Parties In General Election Debates]

Johnson opined that the outcome of the caucuses show that Democrats and Republicans “are not going to nominate a candidate who represents the real majority in America – independents who are fed up with the partisan dance that has given us a $20 trillion debt, endless war and a government intent on eroding the very liberties it is supposed to be preserving.

The libertarian-leaning candidate on the GOP side in the 2016 race, Sen. Rand Paul, fell short of expectations with his fifth-place finish in Iowa, causing him to suspend his campaign on Wednesday.

The pundits have become fond of talking about ‘lanes’ to electoral success. Where is the lane for the millions of Americans who are fundamentally conservative when it comes to the size and cost of government, but just as fundamentally tolerant when it comes to individual and civil liberties?” asked Johnson.

[RELATED: Gary Johnson Responds to President Obama’s State of the Union Address]

Johnson’s comments come just as pundits are beginning to wonder whether the support base that had been backing Sen. Paul will shift to another GOP primary candidate or an independent.

Where that support will go is hard to predict, because Paul isn’t ideologically aligned with any of the [GOP] frontrunners,wrote The Charlotte Observer’s Peter St. Onge.

According to The Associated Press, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio says he plans to attempt to win over Rand Paul’s supporters. Ohio Gov. John Kasich told ABC News on Wednesday that he believes he has a chance to capture some of Paul’s support base.

A July 2015 Truth in Media Consider This video highlights the fact that independent voters now outnumber Republicans and Democrats. Watch it in the below-embedded video player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf26DKntwzM

For more 2016 election coverage, click here.

Poll: Do You Support Rand Paul’s Decision to Suspend His Presidential Campaign?

BREAKING: Rand Paul Ends 2016 Presidential Campaign

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday morning that he is suspending his 2016 presidential campaign.

Paul released a statement saying that he intends to end his campaign where he began, “ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.”

[pull_quote_center]It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty. Across the country thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy. Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I.[/pull_quote_center]

Paul’s announcement follows the Iowa caucus on Monday, where he came in fifth place behind GOP contenders Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson.

In his statement, Paul said although he is suspending his campaign, “the fight is far from over,” and he will focus his efforts on his work as a senator.

[pull_quote_center]Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term.[/pull_quote_center]

For more election coverage, click here.

BREAKING: Rand Paul Presidential Campaign Office Burglarized, Computers Stolen

Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign office in New Hampshire was broken into sometime in the past 24 hours, robbed of computers with databases and campaign files, according to social media posts from one of the candidate’s top advisers.

Michael Biundo, serving as a National Senior Adviser for Senator Paul’s presidential campaign, posted to his Facebook and Twitter accounts this morning with the following update: “Getting ready to go to Iowa today for the final caucus push and now I am dealing with our New Hampshire for Rand Paul office being broken into. I needed more stress this morning. Thanks.

rand-hq-broken-into

 

UPDATE: Jan. 27, 2:30 p.m. EDT – Brandon Ross, a local attorney and volunteer with the Paul campaign, told Truth In Media that other businesses in the same building reported attempted burglaries earlier in the week.

Matt Chisholm, Paul’s New Hampshire communications director, claimed that the items stolen included “four iPads, two laptop computers, two cell phones and some other small electronic devices, including cameras and headphones.” 

 

.

DONEGAN: Media Should Report on Presidential Elections, Not Manipulate Them

The 2016 presidential election, crowded with candidates in a circus-like atmosphere, is serving as a type of stress test for the U.S. news media. Can journalists, often viewed as members of the U.S. government’s fourth unofficial branch, manage the task of accurately and neutrally informing American voters of the positions of the many candidates that are running for president this time?

However, in order to achieve this simple-sounding feat, journalists must resist two major innate urges: giving in to the greedy lust for easy clicks and bending coverage to fit their own personal political biases or financial interests.

Billionaire Donald Trump’s celebrity campaign exposes media outlets who favor ratings and clicks over reporting the news, as Trump’s reality TV popularity has given the stiff and stodgy world of electoral politics an Access Hollywood-style makeover and a new audience hungry for gossip about the billionaire real estate investor’s latest controversies. Unfortunately, the U.S. media appears to be failing that aspect of the 2016 stress test, as Trump’s out-sized popularity has led to him obtaining “the overwhelming majority of [the 2016 presidential election’s] news coverage,” as University of Texas at Arlington political science professor Rebecca Deen told BBC News.

Journalists will obviously seek out content that attracts readers and viewers, as that is the nature of the news marketplace, but there is a difference between making sure to cover the hottest stories and choosing only to cover candidates that are already bringing in big ratings prior to even receiving coverage on their positions.

On the other hand, the vast array of different candidates in the 2016 race has placed a spotlight on the various biases that appear to burden different networks.

Fox News was criticized by conservatives, who likely believe that the news organization has cozy ties with the Republican National Committee, for posing what they saw as left wing attacks as questions at the network’s Aug. 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate in what was seen as an effort to disrupt outsider candidates like Carson and Trump and to put conservative candidates on the defensive. Fox has also drawn criticism for repeatedly leaving Sen. Rand Paul’s name off of on-screen graphics ranking candidates by their poll numbers, an issue that also plagued former Congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.

CNN has drawn criticism from Bernie Sanders supporters for pointlessly declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of Democratic presidential debates immediately upon their conclusion based often on arbitrary metrics, leading some observers to conclude that the network seems to unofficially favor the candidacy of Clinton over Sanders. Sen. Jim Webb accused the cable news channel of rigging the Democratic debates for Clinton and Sanders. CNN, which many perceive as left-leaning, also openly admitted to planning more divisive and combative debate questions for Republicans than it did for Democrats.

[RELATED: CNN Reportedly Planning Less-Confrontational Format for Democratic Debate]

Biases exist and always will because all journalists are human and have them. However, good journalists should admit their biases and work hard not to let them poison their coverage of facts and ruin their credibility in the eyes of neutral observers.

Also, media outlets are sometimes guilty of manipulating the playing field in the presidential race for their own convenience. As an example, news networks drew criticism from Republican activists for trying to winnow down the large field of GOP candidates prior to presidential debates based on early poll numbers, thus denying some lesser-known but serious candidates a platform to ever promote their candidacy in the first place.

It is not the media’s job to choose which candidates get to outline their policies to voters. It is the media’s job to neutrally publicize the views of all of those candidates and to let voters in the fifty states winnow the field down in the voting booth.

[RELATED: DONEGAN: If GOP Debate Stage Can Fit 11, Let Third Parties In General Election Debates]

When Fox Business cut Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina from the main stage of its Jan. 14 debate to the undercard, some accused the network of reducing the number of candidates on the main stage in an effort to prevent the undercard stage from being cut from the program due to a lack of available candidates, potentially putting advertising dollars at risk.

Ultimately, the U.S. news media as a whole should be judged on its coverage of the presidential race based on whether voters have been equipped with the information necessary to look at all of the candidates on the ballot on election day and choose the one whose positions line up best with their own personal views. It should not be a press release service for journalists’ favorite campaigns’ talking points, a public relations firm selling the viewpoints of the political establishment, or a ratings-and-clicks-obsessed tabloid detailing the latest celebrity gossip.

For more election coverage, click here.

GOP Debate: Without Rand Paul Present, Chris Christie’s Assad Comments Go Unchallenged

During the sixth GOP presidential debate of the 2016 election on Thursday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was asked about the importance of toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Governor Christie, how important is it to remove Assad from power and how would you do it?” Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo asked, noting that former GOP candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham has said that the U.S. will find “Arab support” for its coalition against ISIS if Assad is removed.

“You’re not going to have peace in Syria with Assad in charge. You’re simply not,” Christie replied. “And so Senator Graham is right about this.”

Christie criticized President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach, saying that Obama initially said, “If Assad uses chemical weapons against his people, that we’re going to attack.”

“He used chemical weapons, he’s killed, now, over a quarter of a million of his own people, and this president has done nothing,” Christie said. “In fact, he’s done worse than nothing.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: GOP Candidates Completely Wrong on Origin of ISIS in Latest Debate]

Christie went on to claim that Obama has used Russian President Vladimir Putin to “negotiate getting those chemical weapons back from Assad,” and as a result he said that the Russians and the Iranians are working together, “not to fight ISIS, but to prop up Assad.”

“The fact of the matter is that we are not going to have peace – we are not going to have peace in Syria,” Christie said. “We’re not going to be able to rebuild it unless we put a no-fly zone there, make it safe for those folks so we don’t have to be talking about Syrian refugees anymore.”

While Christie’s comments about Assad in Syria are nothing new, there was a noticeable difference in the fact that not one of the candidates on stage challenged his rhetoric.

[RELATED: GOP Debate: Rand Paul Warns of Consequences of Regime Change in Syria]

During the fifth GOP debate on Dec. 15, Christie claimed that ISIS is created and formed because of the abuse that Assad and his Iranian sponsors have rained down on the Sunnis in Syria.” 

He was challenged by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who argued that had Assad been bombed when he used chemical weapons two years ago, ISIS would be in charge of all of Syria now.”

“There are still people—the majority on the stage, they want to topple Assad,” Paul said. “And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge of Syria.”

Paul also responded to Christie’s calls for a “no-fly zone” over Syria during the Dec. debate, saying, “Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina Cut From Fox’s Main GOP Debate

Fox News released its lineup for Thursday’s GOP debate on Monday night, announcing that the stage will hold seven candidates, cutting Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina from the lineup.

In preparation for the primetime debate, which will air at 9 p.m. ET, Fox Business Network reportedly selected its lineup based off of the top six candidates in the five most recent national polls, as well as any candidates polling in the top five in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

The main stage will feature the smallest GOP lineup thus far, and will include real estate mogul Donald Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

As a consolation, Paul and Fiorina have been invited to participate in the “undercard” debate, which airs at 6 p.m. ET Thursday. The other GOP candidates participating in the debate are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that because he has been excluded from the main stage, he plans to boycott the debate altogether. “I won’t participate in anything that’s not first tier because we have a first tier campaign,” he explained.

Paul then told the Washington Post that he has resulted to “take the debate to Iowa and New Hampshire” instead.

“I think they’ve made a mistake,” Paul said. “I’m not willing to accept a designation as a minor campaign. We’ve raised $25 million. We’ve gotten on the ballot on every state. It’s kind of ridiculous to arbitrarily rate the campaigns based on national polling.”

Fiorina faced off on the undercard stage during the first GOP debate, and was then moved to the main stage after CNN amended its rules for the lineup.

Responding to the news on Monday night, Fiorina told CBS Radio Boston’s Dan Rea Show that according to the poll used by Fox News, she should be qualified, but that she will still debate “anyone, anytime, anywhere.”

“Well, you know, these polls are all over the map,” Fiorina said. “In the Fox News poll, I’m in sixth place, which would qualify me, but hey, I’ll debate anyone, anytime, anywhere. I’ll be in South Carolina and what I know is that polls don’t win elections, voters do.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Block Obama from Executive Action on Gun Control

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul re-introduced a bill on Monday that would prevent funding for any executive order from President Obama that would enact gun control measures.

The Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act, which is currently being fast-tracked through the Senate, and could see a vote as early as next month, is an updated version of a bill that was introduced in the 2013-14 session.

The bill states that any “existing or proposed executive action that infringes on the powers and duties of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall have no force or effect.

[pull_quote_center]It is the sense of Congress that any executive action issued by the President before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act that infringes on the powers and duties of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States or the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or that would require the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the executive action, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless enacted as law.[/pull_quote_center]

The bill would also give Americans the right to launch a civil lawsuit, if they were affected by an executive action on gun control.

“In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution,” Paul said in a statement. “We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it.”

In October, reports claimed that Obama was considering using an executive order to circumvent Congress, in order to mandate that anyone who sells more than 50 guns a year has to have a federal license, and any potential customers must have federal background checks.

GOP Debate: Rand Paul Warns of Consequences of Regime Change in Syria

The fifth GOP debate of the 2016 presidential election was hosted by CNN on Tuesday, and it highlighted the candidates’ positions on foreign policy, terrorism and national security.

When asked if he still believes the hawks in the GOP are responsible for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he thinks “if you believe in regime change, you’re mistaken.”

Paul said that after the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar “put 600 tons of weapons” into the war against Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2013, it created a safe space. “We had people coming to our Foreign Relations Committee and saying, ‘Oh, we need to arm the allies of Al Qaeda,'” Paul said. “They are still saying this. It is a crazy notion.”

[pull_quote_center]This is the biggest debate we should be having tonight: Is regime change a good idea; has it been a good idea? There are still people—the majority on the stage—they want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge of Syria.[/pull_quote_center]

[RELATED: Truth In Media: the Origin of ISIS]

CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) to chime in on the subject, and while Rubio called for a broader coalition to strengthen the fight against ISIS, he also claimed Assad is one of the main reasons ISIS exists.

[pull_quote_center]Assad is one of the main reasons why ISIS even exists to begin with. Assad is a puppet of Iran. And he has been so brutal toward the Sunni within Syria that he created the space that led to the people of Syria themselves to stand up and try to overthrow him.[/pull_quote_center]

Rubio said the fact that President Obama “led from behind” meant that there were “no alternative groups left to fight ISIS,” and that “led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to come in and take advantage of that situation and grow more powerful.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS to Emerge in Syria]

When asked if he thought overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a good idea, Paul said although he thinks regime change is a bad idea, it doesn’t mean “Hussein was necessarily a good idea.”

[pull_quote_center]What we have to decide is whether or not regime change is a good idea. It’s what the neoconservatives have wanted. It’s what the vast majority of those on the stage want. They still want regime change. They want it in Syria. They wanted it in Iraq. They want it in Libya. It has not worked.[/pull_quote_center]

For more election coverage, click here.

IVN: 5 Politicians Taking A Stand Against More Surveillance After Paris

By Carl Wicklander  Since the Paris terrorist attacks on November 13, various mainstream news outlets have noted that the politics of surveillance have shifted. A shift would indicate that instead of rolling back surveillance policies in favor of more privacy, more invasive policies could be enacted.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio used the attacks to accuse fellow Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul of forcing a “weakening of our intelligence-gathering capabilities” that ultimately “leaves America vulnerable.” Yet despite this shift, there are still at least 5 politicians who remain consistent about surveillance after Paris.

1. U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03)

On Twitter, Amash, a noted critic of surveillance policies, wrote of Rubio’s support for a bill to extend the bulk collection of metadata that was a key provision of the Patriot Act:

.just cosponsored bill to extend unconstitutional spying on all Americans. He’d fit right in with GOP of past.

2. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)

The Kentucky representative told ABC News over Thanksgiving weekend how the immediate aftermath of a tragedy is the time when the government tries to capitalize on citizens’ fears to expand its power:

“Within six weeks of 9/11 they passed the Patriot Act. And it’s only natural they would try to do the same thing this time.”

3. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (KY)

Calling the argument that the Paris attacks required more surveillance “bullshit,” Sen. Paul also noted that surveillance policies of the past and present did not stop the Paris attacks:

“They are collecting your phone records as we speak, they did not miss a beat, even though we voted on reform, all your phone records are being collected and stored in Utah. Did it stop the attack in Paris? No.”

4. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (TX)

One of the candidates attacked by Rubio for opposing Patriot Act bulk collections, Cruz responded that his rival:

“…is trying to respond to the criticism that he has received that he is not willing to protect the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Separately, Cruz posted one of his endorsements on Twitter which noted his role in passing the USA Freedom Act:

“[Cruz] will use every tool we have to win, but he will never betray the very Constitution we are sworn to defend.”

Even before its passage, there was fierce debate about how much privacy the Freedom Act provided Americans, but Cruz’s positions have indicated that more surveillance is not the answer.

5. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (OR)

The Oregon Democrat has long been a critic of Washington’s surveillance policies. Echoing some of the sentiments of Paul and Massie, Wyden explained that broadly-defined powers are not even effective, which was also the case in France where an aggressive surveillance law was passed following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January:

“While some people seem eager to seize on this crisis to resurrect failed policies of the past, the facts show mass surveillance doesn’t protect us from terrorist attacks.”

 

 

Republished with permission by IVN.