In my recent interview with Ricky Varandas on The Ripple Effect podcast, I enjoyed a great discussion on current and past events impacting the world and talked about the launch of my new platform, ISE Media. In this interview I was able to share some of my background in my 20 years of journalism and explained how 2012 in particular was an awakening to the way that mainstream media operates.
As we covered a number of topics ranging from issues stemming from the pandemic to widespread corruption in the media, I appreciated the opportunity to talk about the censorship sweeping across every tech platform and how ISE is poised to allow a space where facts and ideas can be freely discussed.
Ricky and I also talked about the equity crowdfund for ISE Media going on now. With the support of investors in this crowdfund our goal is to expand the platform; we launched this crowdfund to not only help our team continue development and building out the platform, but to allow our investors to actually own a part of ISE Media.
Our announcement video explains the platform launch and how crowdfund investors can own part of ISE Media. Click to watch here.
You can also register your ISE Media account right now by clicking here.
Content creators like Ricky, myself and many others are publishing and sharing important, quality content. While big tech platforms are determined to stamp out these voices that challenge mainstream narratives, we are fighting back with the ISE Media platform.
Washington, D.C. – Former Congressman Ron Paul has strongly argued following the alleged chemical gas attack blamed on the Syrian government that it makes no logical sense for Assad to order a gas attack, and has called the accusations a telltale sign of a false flag attack meant to provide justification for the U.S. military to maintain a presence in Syria.
“An incident will occur and somebody will get blamed and it’s usually a false flag,” said Paul.
“Right now, recently, it’s all been in Syria, ‘Assad did it! Assad did it!’” explained the former congressman. “No proof at all.”
“The way the people that perpetuate these false flags [sic] say that Assad is gassing his own people, at the same time, he’s winning the war and the people are flocking back in to go to the territories that he has returned to the government of Syria,” explained Paul. “But, nevertheless, he’s out there gassing his own people, which makes no sense whatsoever and fewer and fewer people are believing this.”
Paul, who founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity in 2013 after leaving the U.S. House, presented his analysis via the Ron Paul Liberty Report, describing how foreign policy goals related to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Russia, as well as the influence of neoconservatives, oil interests, and the military-industrial complex play into the current paradigm we see playing out in Syria.
During an appearance on RT, Paul further elaborated. “This whole idea that all of a sudden Assad’s gassing his own people, I think, is total nonsense,” Paul said, pointing out that “over and over again” the US has claimed the Syrian or Russian government has been complicit in previous gas attacks in Syria – and the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in London — but “nothing panned out.” Or as Paul put it, one “fake news” story after another.
The libertarian icon then reasoned that the rush to condemn the Syrian government without evidence is meant to provide a justification for those wanting the US to remain in Syria and topple the Syrian government in hopes of installing a more western-friendly regime that is not within Russia or Iran’s sphere of influence.
Paul argued that, while it provides little to no strategic benefit for Assad to gas his own people, it would greatly benefit those that are pushing for regime change – especially after Trump recently said he would like to remove U.S. troops from Syria.
Washington, D.C. — Preeminent “Godfather of Liberty” Ron Paul waded into the controversy surrounding the recently released FISA memo, which provided detailed allegations of the FBI and DOJ’s abuse of the FISA court, providing a unique perspective that aims to cut through the partisan divide. Paul was quick to call out the lies perpetuated in the run-up to the release of the memo.
In an article published for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, titled What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government, Paul noted:
The release of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process set off a partisan firestorm. The Democrats warned us beforehand that declassifying the memo would be the end the world as we know it. It was reckless to allow Americans to see this classified material, they said. Agents in the field could be harmed, sources and methods would be compromised, they claimed.
Republicans who had seen the memo claimed that it was far worse than Watergate. They said that mass firings would begin immediately after it became public. They said that the criminality of US government agencies exposed by the memo would shock Americans.
Then it was released and the world did not end. FBI agents have thus far not been fired. Seeing “classified” material did not terrify us, but rather it demonstrated clearly that information is kept from us by claiming it is “classified.”
After rebuking the left/right media talking points perpetuated by corporate media, Paul placed a laser-like focus on what he identifies as the actual root cause of what has been taking place in Washington, D.C.: the Military-Industrial Complex.
Paul wrote that the “deep state” feared “Trump’s repeated promises to get along with Russia and to re-assess NATO so many years after the end of the Cold War were threatening to a Washington that depends on creating enemies to sustain the fear needed to justify a trillion dollar yearly military budget.” He claims that the fervor surrounding Russiagate was simply a ploy by hawks on both sides of the aisle to create anti-Russia sentiment within the American population, which “served their real goal of keeping the US on war footing and keeping the gravy train rolling.”
Paul continued:
In the end, both sides got it wrong. Here’s what the memo really shows us:
First, the memo demonstrates that there is a “deep state” that does not want things like elections to threaten its existence. Candidate Trump’s repeated promises to get along with Russia and to re-assess NATO so many years after the end of the Cold War were threatening to a Washington that depends on creating enemies to sustain the fear needed to justify a trillion dollar yearly military budget.
Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without the “Russia threat” and without the “China threat” and without the need to dump billions into NATO, we might actually have reaped a “peace dividend” more than a quarter century after the end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and its network of pro-war “think tanks” that populate the Washington Beltway area.
Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims. It is clear that the FISA abuse detailed in the memo was well known to Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes before the memo was actually released. It was likely also well known by Democrats in the House. But both parties suppressed this evidence of FBI abuse of the FISA process until after the FISA Amendments Act could be re-authorized. They didn’t want Americans to know how corrupt the surveillance system really is and how the US has become far too much like East Germany. That might cause more Americans to call up their Representatives and demand that the FISA mass surveillance amendment be allowed to sunset.
Ironically, Chairman Nunes was the biggest cheerleader for the extension of the FISA Amendments even as he knew how terribly the FISA process had been abused!
Finally, hawks on both sides of the aisle in Congress used “Russia-gate” as an excuse to build animosity toward Russia among average Americans. They knew from the classified information that there was no basis for their claims that the Trump Administration was put into office with Moscow’s assistance, but they played along because it served their real goal of keeping the US on war footing and keeping the gravy train rolling.
But don’t worry: the neocons in both parties will soon find another excuse to keep us terrified and ready to flush away a trillion dollars a year on military spending and continue our arguments and new “Cold War” with Russia.
In the meantime, be skeptical of both parties. With few exceptions they are not protecting liberty but promoting its opposite.
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday evening, former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul announced on his Twitter page that he would be live-tweeting President Trump’s State of the Union speech. Paul then proceeded to critically assess the speech with his liberty-based perspective.
Are you going to be watching #SOTU State of the Union speech tonight? I'll be live-Tweeting the speech! See you then! pic.twitter.com/9ANZRBhzUR
Trump’s address began as a ceremonious introduction expected of an imperial celebration; to begin his speech, Trump called for bipartisan unity, which Paul presciently noted was potentially a bad idea, if the “coming together” included “bad foreign policy, bad monetary policy, deficit financing, massive military spending and foreign entanglements.”
Lots of praise for bipartisanship and "coming together" but coming together is not really the answer if it means coming together on bad foreign policy, bad monetary policy, deficit financing, massive military spending and foreign entanglements. #SOTU
A liberty icon and champion of individual freedom, Paul has steadfastly worked to call out federal government expansion throughout his decades of government service.
Next, Trump briefly touched on healthcare, claiming that Americans with “terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives.” Trump’s words stand in contrast to his actions, particularly his appointment of Jeff Sessions, who has revived the federal war on cannabis – a critical medicine for many ill patients across the U.S. – after campaigning on a promise to leave the decision to legalize marijuana up to states.
Terminally ill should have access to experimental drugs – yes! But in a free market all free individuals should be able to make decisions on what kinds of medicine they wish to take. Like marijuana. #SOTU
“My duty, and the sacred duty of every elected official in this chamber, is to defend Americans — to protect their safety, their families, their communities, and their right to the American Dream. Because Americans are dreamers too.”
Paul, known as a strong constitutionalist, was quick to call out Trump’s ideals, noting that the “prime function of Federal government is NOT protecting our safety! It is the preservation of our Liberty.”
Prime function of the Federal government is NOT protecting our safety! It is the preservation of our Liberty. That forgotten word… #SOTU
Paul noted Liberty as “that forgotten word.” The reason for this tweet is simple, as it was only spoken by Trump once as he discussed protecting “religious liberty.” Additionally, as Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project noted, “the word ‘freedom’ was only mentioned six times and it was purely symbolic, referring to foreign countries and statues in Washington.”
The one common theme that was mentioned quite frequently by Trump was the projection of strength and power, which Paul noted equated to “ more spending to enrich the military-industrial complex.”
“Unmatched power is the surest means of our defense,” declared Trump, who then went on to say, “As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”
We're not lacking power. We are the most powerful country in the history of the world — weapons, military, etc. We don't need more spending to enrich the military-industrial complex! #SOTU
Trump went on to say the Federal government needs more power to detain terrorists, despite the PATRIOT Act and NDAA already allowing for virtually groundless indefinite detention.
“I am also asking the Congress to ensure that, in the fight against ISIS and al-Qa’ida, we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists — wherever we chase them down. Our warriors in Afghanistan also have new rules of engagement. Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans,” Trump stated.
Occupation is the greatest incentive for Americans to be attacked. If you want us safe, bring our troops home from 150+ countries! #SOTU
Looks like the war on Afghanistan will continue into its 17th year. Longest in US history. Not telling enemies our plans – but do American people get to know? #SOTU
Trump then pivoted to discussion of Iran and North Korea. “When the people of Iran rose up against the crimes of their corrupt dictatorship, I did not stay silent. America stands with the people of Iran in their courageous struggle for freedom,” Trump stated.
“North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear missiles could very soon threaten our homeland,” Trump continued. “We are waging a campaign of maximum pressure to prevent that from ever happening. Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation. I will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations that got us into this very dangerous position.”
Ron Paul didn’t mince his words in response:
NO benefit to go out of our way to provoke Iran. They are not going to attack America. #SOTU
Paul concluded that Trump’s address was a “glorification of militarism and an aggressive foreign policy.”
Wrapping up his twitterstorm, Paul noted that Congress “members’ over-enthusiastic response to militarism” was extremely discouraging.
Summary: The most dangerous part of the speech was the glorification of militarism and our aggressive foreign policy. Sadly, the Members' over-enthusiastic response to the militarism was not encouraging. #SOTU
The FBI tells us that its demand for a back door into the iPhone is all about fighting terrorism, and that it is essential to break in just this one time to find out more about the San Bernardino attack last December. But the truth is they had long sought a way to break Apple’s iPhone encryption and, like 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, a mass murder provided just the pretext needed. After all, they say, if we are going to be protected from terrorism we have to give up a little of our privacy and liberty. Never mind that government spying on us has not prevented one terrorist attack.
Apple has so far stood up to a federal government’s demand that it force its employees to write a computer program to break into its own product. No doubt Apple CEO Tim Cook understands the damage it would do to his company for the world to know that the US government has a key to supposedly secure iPhones. But the principles at stake are even higher. We have a fundamental right to privacy. We have a fundamental right to go about our daily life without the threat of government surveillance of our activities. We are not East Germany.
Let’s not forget that this new, more secure iPhone was developed partly in response to Ed Snowden’s revelations that the federal government was illegally spying on us. The federal government was caught breaking the law but instead of ending its illegal spying is demanding that private companies make it easier for it to continue.
Last week we also learned that Congress is planning to join the fight against Apple — and us. Members are rushing to set up yet another governmental commission to study how our privacy can be violated for false promises of security. Of course they won’t put it that way, but we can be sure that will be the result. Some in Congress are seeking to pass legislation regulating how companies can or cannot encrypt their products. This will suppress the development of new technology and will have a chilling effect on our right to be protected from an intrusive government. Any legislation Congress writes limiting encryption will likely be unconstitutional, but unfortunately Congress seldom heeds the Constitution anyway.
When FBI Director James Comey demanded a back door into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, he promised that it was only for this one, extraordinary situation. “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message,” he said in a statement last week. Testifying before Congress just days later, however, he quickly changed course, telling the Members of the House Intelligence Committee that the court order and Apple’s appeals, “will be instructive for other courts.” Does anyone really believe this will not be considered a precedent-setting case? Does anyone really believe the government will not use this technology again and again, with lower and lower thresholds?
According to press reports, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has 175 iPhones with passcodes that the City of New York wants to access. We can be sure that is only the beginning.
We should support Apple’s refusal to bow to the FBI’s dangerous demands, and we should join forces to defend of our precious liberties without compromise. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
On last Thursday’s episode of Meet the Press Daily on MSNBC, host Chuck Todd, who also serves as a moderator for Meet the Press on NBC, asked libertarian icon and former Republican Congressman Ron Paul if he could support the presidential ambitions of either Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz.
“Now, there’s some parts of your message though that I think Donald Trump’s tried to co-opt. I think there’s some part of your message that Ted Cruz has tried to co-opt. Do believe that and have they— are either one of them speaking to you enough that you could envision supporting them?” asked Todd.
“Impossible,” replied Paul, who then suggested that Trump and Cruz are “authoritarians” and said that “libertarians are non-authoritarians.”
He continued, “So especially [their] foreign policy [positions] and then when it comes to the drug war. How many are out there talking about the evils of the drug war and how we throw people in jail? Rand was the only one that talked about that. But no, they’re pushed aside— they can’t stand to have that in a debate so they put him aside and he doesn’t get to present that case.”
Todd also pointed out to Paul that Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders “most often voted for some of your bills than anybody else running in this race.”
“Yes,” Paul replied. “It could be because we did work together and people would say, ‘Why are you and Bernie you know, agreeing on this issue?’ But we would both attack subsidies of corporations, but he is an outright authoritarian because on economic matters he would be totally authoritarian for the re-distribution of wealth and just soak it to the rich, even if the rich didn’t make it off special contracts for the government.”
Speaking on Sanders’ foreign policy positions, Paul said, “He’s not a non-interventionist, but he certainly is a lot better than the other Democrats.”
Paul then argued that President Obama had enacted some policies appreciated by libertarians and pointed to his opening of trade relations with Cuba and his lifting of sanctions on Iran.
Despite the fact that a libertarian candidate has not yet surged in the polls in the 2016 presidential race, Paul struck an optimistic tone in his assessment of the recent victories of the U.S. libertarian movement.
“I think there are great strides to emphasize the benefits of non-intervention in foreign policy, and, right now even, we’re winning in the [repeal of the] drug war. Most states are now nullifying federal laws. They’re saying, ‘To heck with ya’. Those laws are stupid.’ So I think libertarianism is making great progress in many ways, but don’t look to the people in Washington and the national debate, especially if they regulate the debates to the point where the libertarian message is excluded.”
2016 Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for The New York Times on Wednesday calling for the Federal Reserve to be audited independently by the Government Accountability Office on an annual basis.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a historic Jan. 12 vote on a bill, colloquially referred to as “Audit the Fed,” which was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The bill would authorize the GAO to perform full audits of the Federal Reserve System.
“To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates,” wrote Sen. Sanders.
He added, “What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed’s board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.”
Sanders called for the Glass-Steagall Act to be reinstated, a Depression-era banking regulation that created a wall of separation between consumer and investment banks prior to its repeal by former President Bill Clinton. He also suggested that the Fed should be prevented from providing incentives to encourage banks to sit on cash reserves.
“As a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed,” said Sanders, “large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.”
Sanders argued that the Federal Reserve suffers from a lack of transparency. “In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Fed during the financial crisis. We need to go further and require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year,” he said.
Audit the Fed legislation first became a hot political topic as a result of the sudden, meteoric 2008 rise to popularity of libertarian icon and former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who made the push for Fed transparency a central focus of his entire political career.
The Dodd-Frank amendment that Sen. Sanders is referring to that provided for a limited audit of the Federal Reserve drew strong criticism from Congressman Paul back in 2010, as Paul felt that Sanders had hijacked his momentum for a full audit and replaced it with a more limited, watered-down version. Congressman Paul’s full Audit the Fed legislation had already passed the House prior to Sanders’ push for a tamer audit in the Senate.
In the above-embedded video from 2010, an irate Ron Paul can be seen saying, “I had expected Bernie Sanders to offer S. 604 which is the same as H.R. 1207, which is Audit the Fed bill, and at the last minute he switched it and watered it down and, really, it adds nothing. It’s a possibility that it even makes the current conditions worse… We need to get as many messages as possible to any senator you can think of — especially to Bernie Sanders’ office — that we don’t want this version. We want a true audit of the Fed. We need to know what the Open Market Committee does and we need to know what they’re doing overseas with the agreements with central banks and financial institutions and other governments.”
In his weekly column on Sunday for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, libertarian icon and former Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul outlined his foreign policy strategy in the wake of Friday’s series of deadly terror attacks targeting Paris.
Paul suggested that the U.S. should “focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon ‘regime change’ and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.”
Calling on leaders to shift away from policies that led to the rise of ISIS “before it’s too late,” Paul said, “Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups – seeking the overthrow of Assad – many of the weapons they have sent to the more ‘moderate’ factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals. Moderate groups have joined more radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them. Other moderate groups have been captured or killed, their US-provided weapons also going to the radicals. Thus the more radical factions have become better equipped and better trained, while occasionally being attacked by US or allied planes.”
He added, “Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have now seen in Paris? The French in particular have been very active in arming even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept of blowback?”
Blowback is an intelligence term referring to scenarios in which harmful unintended consequences are projected back on a nation in response to its own covert operations.
Paul pointed to the Iran nuclear deal, which lifts sanctions on Iran, as a promising approach to reducing tensions in the Middle East and noted that “most presidential candidates compete to thump the table loudest against any deal with Iran” despite the fact that Iran’s active participation in the war on ISIS in Syria has made it a potential target of the terror group.
Paul conceded that “it may not be popular to say [these things] as emotions run high and calls ring out for more bombing in the Middle East.”
Earlier this year, Ben Swann released a Truth in Media video exposing how U.S. foreign policy led to the rise of ISIS. Watch it in the below-embedded video player.
Again, innocent citizens of a broadly liberal, secular West, die at the hands of those who self-identify as Islamic purists, but are rejected by most of the rest of their faith.
How many Westerners who changed updated their Facebook profiles with a Tricolore on Friday updated them with the Lebanese flag the day before, when dozens of Lebanese were killed in Beirut in another Islamo-extremist attack?
If you did the one and not the other, don’t feel bad. You – like they – are victims of the Western media, just as much as of Western foreign policy.
With all the usual (but nevertheless important and true) qualifiers that those who bear all the moral responsibility for the recent deaths in Paris are those who pulled the triggers and detonated their suicide vests, it must be said that we, the West, are collectively doing nothing to help ourselves.
On the contrary, we continue to make it worse – in two main ways. And importantly, the reason we cannot stop doing making it worse, it seems, is that across the West, the political Left are committed to making things worse in one way, and the political Right are committed to making things worse in the other.
What are these two things we are doing to exacerbate the actions of extremists against us?
The first is the one already mentioned – favored by the standard neo-con sensibility (Bush, Hillary Clinton et al.) – to go pound the hell out of (or into) cultures and countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. ) that we don’t control, to affect the dynamics of long-standing conflicts that we don’t understand, in ways that do damage that we cannot contain.
Ron Paul for years was warning us about blowback. It’s a real thing – and, it always has been, throughout history – because human nature is largely constant.
Don’t take my (or Dr Paul’s) word for it: take the word of the United States’ own Department of Defense, which commissioned a study, headed by Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, that collected and analyzed huge amounts of data on suicide terrorism — which is 12 times more dangerous than other forms of terrorism when measured by the number of people killed per act. In this U.S. government study, speakers of the local languages of the families of suicide bombers were sent to speak with family members of the terrorists to gain as much information as possible about the context and the people involved. The database thus obtained on suicide terrorism is, as far as we know, the most comprehensive in the world.
The most astonishing conclusion of this work was as follows; 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks — going back to the 1980s — are against countries that the terrorist deems to be occupying (in the sense of a military presence) physical territory that that the terrorist regards as a homeland. The reason this is astonishing is that this 95 percent figure includes all those radical Islamic groups who have attacked Israel and the USA, but it explains why the U.S., for example, has only experienced such attacks (such as 9/11 itself), from citizens of countries in which it has a military presence: that’s why, says the DOD study, we were hit by Saudis on 9-11, but not Iranians, Sudanese or representatives of other countries with a large radical Islamist contingent.
So one way of helping to protect ourselves from extremists might be just to stop with all those self-righteous “Freedom bombs” that kill children in places whose names we cannot even spell.
Of course, one might object that France is hardly intervening globally on the scale that America does, so isn’t the fact that Paris is getting hit more than, say, New York or D.C., evidence against the thesis?
No – because not imposing one’s will on others in their homes is only half the story: it’s only the “Let Live” part of “Live and Let Live”.
In the West, we have also forgotten that “Live and Let Live” has a first part, which is usually overlooked: that is simply “Live”.
The same Western polities that feel perfectly (and illiberally) righteous in intervening with physical force in other countries are paradoxically caught up in a faux progressivism at home that prevents them from defending their own.
It’s an absolute contradiction that goes like this: “we must attack them over there because they are dangerous and evil – but we don’t need to monitor and control those who flow across our borders because to do so would be intolerant, prejudicial and even racist”. In other words, “they” are dangerous enough that we need to kill them where they cannot hurt us, but not so dangerous that we need to stop them coming to hurt us.
Only ideological (or power-driven) politicians could maintain that kind of contradictory nonsense without painful cognitive dissonance.
The first responsibility and primary justification of government is the security of its own citizens – to whom it is accountable. And the first line of the security of a nation is its borders, which must be controlled to prevent the entry of those who wish to do harm. That is a moral good. In contrast, hurting innocents who are nowhere near one’s borders is a moral evil.
Making a real assessment of the risk associated with largely or partially unmonitored immigration – and in particular, making a proper distinction between genuine refugees (from messes that we helped to create) and economic migrants to whom our moral responsibility is clearly different – is not intolerant, prejudiced, or racist. It is reasonable, sensible, and just.
Here’s a thought experiment that doesn’t take much imagination at all.
If you were an ISIS fighter and you wanted to attack the West – and there were thousands of folks who looked like you pouring through the borders of that part of the world you wanted to be in, unseen and undocumented, why would you not enter among them? You’d frankly be stupid not to.
And since I write for an American audience, if you were an ISIS fighter, how would you get in to the US to launch an attack? Of course you’d walk over the Mexican border because you can.
Mark Steyn insightfully observed that
“… multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon”.
He might have overstated there, but if we add one word, he is painfully accurate: pathological multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon.
So what makes multiculturism pathological? I’ll offer a very precise definition: pathological multiculturalism is the over-accommodation by one culture of others by denigrating or hiding its own values, its own history, its own identity, and its own self-celebration.
Why is it that we in the West are so bad at overtly celebrating our history, our values, and our culture. We don’t even teach any of these in our schools in any serious way in the developed West. I hate to give a cliché as an answer, but it just fits so well – especially in Europe. Our white Liberal guilt has gotten the better of us. Because we did bad things in our history, we don’t celebrate the good things we did. Because we have oppressed people, we don’t point to the thousand-year long march of history that has freed millions. Because cultural minorities in our countries find it harder to get mainstream exposure (inevitable by virtue of their numbers), we stay quiet about our own culture, lest we cause offence.
Live and Let Live is – as it has always been and forever will be – the right motto for our times. But the West, in a kind of vicious cycle of fear, has (at least since 2001) been doing the opposite: “Kill and Let Be Killed”.
For those who prefer concrete political concepts to four-word idioms, the problem and its solution can be framed it in terms of self-determination – a concept right there in Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the United Nations charter.
Self-determination demands that we respect the sovereignty of other self-identified communities, nations and cultures. But it’s the very same self-determination that leaves us with the responsibility of respecting and protecting our own from those who would infiltrate to disrupt our own communities, nations and cultures.
In short, the fundamental question for the West at this time in history seems to be: must our open societies tolerate the intolerance that seeks to destroy our tolerance?
The answer is No – because that is what self-determination means.
When we understand that, we might be able to make two existential changes: the first will be to stop hurting others where they live – which requires us to recognize and end our self-righteousness and arrogance. The second will be to start protecting ourselves where we live– which requires us to recognize our cultural guilt and be able to talk about Western values as something worth proactively, even preemptively, protecting and asserting – but not exporting.
If we in the West must feel so guilty, let’s feel guilty about the children we’ve killed in Muslim lands – rather than about protecting ourselves from “Muslims” – and others – who would kill us in our own.
IOWA, October 22, 2015– On Thursday, an Iowa jury acquitted longtime aide to former congressman Ron Paul and son Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Jesse Benton on charges of lying to the FBI in an Iowa campaign finance corruption case.
“God is great,” Benton told reporter Grant Rodgers of the Des Moines Register as he left the Southern District of Iowa federal courthouse. “It feels good.” Benton had no other comments.
Senator Paul’s presidential campaign released a one-sentence statement in reaction to Thursday’s decision.
“I am happy that justice has been served,” Paul said in a statement sent by his campaign.
Last week, saying that the indictment against Benton and others was nothing more than political theater, the elder Paul accused the feds of targeting son Rand’s presidential campaign when he was called to testify against Benton in court.
Prosecutors announced the indictments against Benton just one day before the first Republican debate where Rand was set to take stage. At the time, Benton was heading up a Super PAC (political action committee) working on behalf of Rand Paul’s presidential race. The indictments made headlines across the country.
“I don’t consider that a coincidence,” Paul said. “I consider that more than seeking justice.”
Benton served as Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign chairman. In 2014, Benton was managing the reelection campaign of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), but resigned as the Iowa case started to attract a spotlight. Most recently, he served as the head of a pro-Rand Paul Super PAC dedicated to electing the senator as the Republican nominee for president in the 2016 election cycle.
DES MOINES, Iowa (October 15, 2015)—On Wednesday, retired Congressman and presidential contender Ron Paul came to a Des Moines’ federal courthouse to testify for the prosecution against two of his former top campaign staffers, Jesse Benton, who is married to Paul’s granddaughter, and Dimitri Kesari. With force, Paul told jurors that the timing of the indictments against Benton and Kesari were carefully planned in order to pose a threat against his son, United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is currently running for president on the Republican ticket.
Prosecutors announced the indictments against Benton and Kesari just one day before the first Republican debate where Rand was set to take stage. At the time, Benton was heading up a Super PAC (political action committee) working on behalf of Rand Paul’s presidential race. The indictments made headlines across the country.
“I don’t consider that a coincidence,” Paul said. “I consider that more than seeking justice.”
In an opening statement Tuesday, U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor Richard Pilger portrayed Paul as a victim of Benton and Kesari’s plot to keep him in the dark about hidden campaign payments. However, Paul didn’t seem happy about being called on behalf of the prosecution against the two staffers.
“I’m not testifying for the defense,” he said at one point during cross-examination from Kesari’s lawyer. “I’m testifying for the prosecution. And that’s been a heavy burden for my family.”
Last week, almost all charges against Benton were dropped. An additional staffer, John Tate, was also indicted. All charges were dropped against Tate.
Dr. Ron Paul, former Congressman and host of The Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT’s Ameera David that he believes the mainstream media orchestrates some of the election process, and that presidential candidate Donald Trump is an authoritarian and brags about it.
Ameera David: I first asked Dr. Paul what he thinks it says that the three candidates from the private sector are doing the best, does that mean the economy is the foremost issue on the minds of most Americans?
Ron Paul: Well probably yes, but if you look at the Democrat side, you have someone like Bernie Sanders, who has been in nothing else except politics. And he’s doing pretty well. And most incumbents are reelected.
So I think some of this stuff in the presidential campaigns is orchestrated by the major media. It is entertainment. They have competitions going on and on. So I don’t put a lot of stock [in the presdential process], this is still pretty early. ..
Donald Trump is an authoritarian and he brags about it. “I’m the boss and I tell people what to do.” Well, government happens to be a little different than that.
An authoritarian is the opposite of a libertarian. A libertarian wants to release the individuals, get government out of our lives, out of the economy, and out of all these places around the world…
Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell published a blog post on Saturday calling for a grassroots campaign to pressure the U.S. House of Representatives to elect former Congressman and libertarian icon Ron Paul to the position of House speaker.
According to Rockwell, Ron Paul Peace and Prosperity Institute executive director Daniel McAdams, who also served as Dr. Paul’s foreign affairs adviser during his time in Congress, says the U.S. House of Representatives is not required to elect one of its current members to serve as speaker. Consequently, Dr. Paul, who retired from Congress in January of 2013, could in theory be eligible to be elected to lead the House.
A Facebook page dedicated to promoting the election of Ron Paul to House speaker, which was created in 2010, saw new activity this week in response to the buzz around Rockwell’s call.
Current House Speaker John Boehner announced last Friday that he will step down from his position next month, which will leave a vacancy.
In comments on last Friday’s Ron Paul Liberty Report, which was published prior to Rockwell’s blog post, Dr. Paul discussed Boehner’s pending resignation and commented on some of the representatives that are rumored to be in contention to replace him.
“You know, my thoughts are that it’ll be more of the same. They talk about the various possible individuals that might replace Boehner, but none of them seem to be, you know, real conservative or constitutionalist, but it’s almost beside the point because the momentum is so great for more spending,” said Dr. Paul.
Commenting on what he perceives as the Republican-led House of Representatives’ lack of conservatism, Dr. Paul said:
[pull_quote_center]They’re building momentum, and there’s a political advantage to some individuals that if they can close down the government they’ll get some political points and, yet, do you think we’re ever going to see the day when conservatives, limited government constitutionalists will stand up and say, ‘We’re not going to vote for this budget unless you cut out all the funding for these illegal, unconstitutional, insane wars that we’re involved in.’? What are the odds of them even hinting to that? Matter of fact, it’s almost the opposite, because they want to get rid of sequestration… Behind the scenes, Boehner and Pelosi are getting together to get rid of sequestration so funding will go up both on welfare and on warfare.[/pull_quote_center]
Would you like to see Dr. Ron Paul as speaker? Click here to vote in our poll.
Ron Paul joins Kurt Wallace to discuss his new book Swords into Plowshares where he reveals intensely personal stories of himself. He discusses how war is tailored to special interests and propaganda versus the peaceful nature of people.
He reveals why he didn’t really want to be president, while working harder than his opponents.
Dr. Paul talks about practicing medicine, medical philanthropy and what it was like for him to deliver babies. He explains why the power of voluntary answers and free markets serve the benefits of society.
Most interesting was the special moment where Ron Paul shares why he believes in doing things from the principle of anonymity: “If you do it from the heart and you’re expecting a lot of praise, then you’re sort of charging something for it.” He then references the book and movie Magnificent Obsession.
He also tells us what he’s most proud of about his son Rand Paul.
Donald Trump’s refusal to rule out an independent presidential run during the first GOP debate of the 2016 election season put Republican Party officials in a legitimate bind. What happens if Trump or another candidate uses the GOP’s political infrastructure, donor funds, and primary debates as a launch pad for an independent run against the party’s eventual nominee, ultimately spoiling the race in favor of the Democrats?
If that were to happen, Reince Priebus’ Republican National Committee chairmanship would be viewed as an epic failure.
However, in using the party’s sponsorship of and control over officially-recognized Republican presidential primary debates as leverage to pressure all candidates into signing a loyalty pledge, the RNC has set a dangerous precedent. Now, the expectation is that in order to get into the Republican Party’s official presidential debates, each candidate must sign an oath promising not only to swear off an independent run, but also to blindly pre-endorse any of a long list of candidates prior to even debating all of them on the same stage and determining what their positions are. That should be alarming considering the fact that there are 17 announced candidates in this season’s primary.
In fact, in circulating the loyalty pledge so early in the election season, the RNC has asked Republican candidates to sign an oath promising to support the party’s nominee at a time, with candidate filing deadlines still looming, when it might still technically be possible for another candidate to enter the race. In a crowded field, a candidate whose views do not speak for large segments of the party could prevail, forcing single-issue activist candidates to endorse a nominee that on day one of his or her presidency would begin working against them — and conceivably the entire party — on issues. Also, a candidate like Donald Trump, who was a Democrat just a few short years ago, could in theory change his mind on positions at the last minute.
The loyalty oath as a concept will offend Tea Party and libertarian activists who see it as a tool by establishment figures to put the party’s brand over its issues. “Republican in name only” has become a commonly-used pejorative among center-right leaning activist circles to describe brand-focused Republicans who ditch their principles for whatever position polls well after they stealth into office by bamboozling the GOP base into carrying the election for them.
Above the broader concept of the loyalty oath dangles the RNC’s bigger mistake, including language in it that effectively bullies candidates into pledging that they “will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is.”
During the 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential primaries, candidate Ron Paul said from the beginning that he had no intention of running as an independent if he were to lose. There was no need for a loyalty oath because even Ron Paul, with his near-total disregard for political expediency, realized that he had to rule out an independent run to have any practical shot at winning the nomination.
However, former Congressman Paul likely would not have signed a promise to endorse the nominee because not doing so was essential, not only to his principled approach to advocacy, but also to his strategy of collecting delegates that would go on to influence the party at the Republican National Convention. This is often a crucial step in reconciling the party when it is struggling internally with major debates over important issues.
Put simply, if the RNC had made the signing of a similar oath a condition for being a participant in the party’s debates in 2008, Ron Paul would have never signed it and his historic debate performances that inspired an entire generation of activists never would have taken place.
Promising to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is forces candidates to marry themselves to their own attack ads. What kind of schizophrenic message does it send when a candidate spends months warning about how dangerous another candidate will be only to then endorse them months later?
As a former elected county-wide Republican Party official on what is effectively Nashville, Tennessee’s subsidiary of the RNC, I understand the importance of the brand-building job that comes with being an official on a Republican Party executive committee. However, is this loyalty oath going to create a bigger Republican Party or will it create a smaller, more obedient one while, over time, systematically pushing issue-focused and principled conservatives and libertarians out and into the arms of a rising third party?
Also, out of respect for independents who are the fastest growing voter segment in the U.S., it is important to consider the fact, pointed out by Ben Swann in the below-embedded CBS46 Atlanta Reality Check video, that independent taxpayers themselves are forced to invest in the primary system yet do not have a way to get candidates into debates. By limiting the ability for right-leaning independent candidates to participate in the Republican primary process and its debates over issues, which either directly or implicitly tying a loyalty oath to debate participation will do, the RNC is disenfranchising them and giving them no choice but to work to create a third party.
Florida governor and 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush raised many eyebrows recently when he claimed “I have libertarian blood running through my veins.” The comment was an appeal for liberty-minded voters to give his campaign a look.
But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) has already appealed to many liberty-Republicans.
Recently, at a town hall event in South Carolina, Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook asked Senator Cruz why so many supporters of Ron Paul are now working for the Cruz campaign.
“Thanks for the question, it’s one of the most encouraging aspects of our campaign,” Senator Cruz replied. “If we’re going to win we’ve got to reassemble that old Reagan coalition. We’ve got to bring together conservatives, Evangelicals and libertarians. We’ve got to bring together young people, Hispanics and women and Reagan Democrats.”
“In 2012 I was the only candidate in the country who was endorsed by Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. And the reason is, I had built a record of standing and fighting for the Constitution, fighting for religious liberty, fighting for liberty. And when you stand for the Constitution, and when you stand for the Judeo-Christian values that built this country, that can bring people together behind shared principles,” answered Cruz.
“So I’m very proud to have the support of a great many of libertarians and liberty-minded folks here in South Carolina and nationally,” said Cruz.
Steven Long, a liberty activist in South Carolina who attended the Cruz campaign event, told Cook, “I support Cruz because he is a conservative leader that we can count on. He shut down the government to attempt and end Obamacare—one of the worst laws in our nations history. When Rand Paul had his filibusters, Cruz was there to support him, but when Cruz had his filibuster, Paul was nowhere to be found. Cruz speaks the truth about the establishment and he doesn’t try and cozy up to them to get ahead. You’ll never see him endorse Mitch McConnell. He has a record of arguing before the Supreme Court and as Solicitor General he headed up many cases. In the senate he has been a steadfast leader and has never compromised his values.”
When I asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) last year about his views on police demilitarization, reforming drug sentencing, and restoring voting rights to non-violent felons, I posed this question:
“Is your brand of republicanism the new civil rights movement?”
Paul replied, “You know, I think you can look at it that way.”
It was around that time when Paul emerged as a new star of the Republican Party. He was featured on the Time Magazine cover as the “Most Interesting Man in American Politics.”
A unique politician, Paul regularly reaches out to minorities and talks about issues that are taboo in most Republican circles. Paul is “a civil liberties-loving peacenik with millennial appeal,” claimed Politico.
In his race for the Republican nomination, Paul has assigned himself the daunting task of transforming the GOP from a party of “stale and moss-covered” war hawks to a party that is more inclusive and embraces new ideas.
This task has created a difficult political dilemma. How can Paul win more traditional Republicans voters without alienating his libertarian base?
One of the biggest turnoffs among the liberty movement is Paul’s stance on Obama’s Iran deal, which would limit nuclear development in exchanged for relief from sanctions. In March, Paul decided to support the threat from Republicans to sabotage the deal. A month earlier, Paul had stated his opposition to any such sabotage.
Then, in April, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization tied to Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham published an attack ad against Paul preposterously insinuating that, under a Paul presidency, Iran would become capable of launching a nuclear attack on the United States. By July, Paul posted to Facebook his three reasons why he plans to vote down the deal:
“1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran.”
Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, recently wrote that Paul could turn around his campaign by supporting the Iran deal.
“If Rand dared, instead of being yet another single-term senator vying for the nomination, he could overnight become the most important player in the GOP on the biggest foreign-policy issue of the day. He’d get invited to every talk show as the one Republican with the audacity to side with the president to make a deal for peace,” explained McCarthy.
Scott Horton recently criticized Paul on his hawkish stance on Iran. During a recent episode of Truth In Media’s Beer and Politics podcast, Horton said, “If Rand would just read his father’s articles, roll up his sleeves and get out there and fight, he could win. What he can’t win at is the flip-flop pandering contest. . .”
All this considered makes Dr. Ron Paul’s endorsement of Rand Paul interesting, especially in the timing of the announcement.
After months of speculation, the three time presidential candidate Paul made a pitch to donors over the weekend on behalf the 2016 presidential hopeful Paul.
“There is not one candidate who has run for president in my lifetime who can say they fully share my commitment to liberty, Austrian economics, small government, and following the Constitution, than my son, Rand Paul,” the elder Paul wrote in a post to Senator Paul’s Facebook page. “That’s why I have wholeheartedly endorsed him.”
His fundraising letter acknowledged the similarities and differences in their politics.
“. . . I know the media likes to play this little game where they pit us, or certain views, against each other,” he said.
“Don’t fall for it. They’re trying to manufacture storylines at liberty’s expense. You’ve spent years seeing how the media treated me. They aren’t my friends and they aren’t yours.
So please don’t waste your time or risk the massive gains you and I have made over the past eight years by suddenly believing Big Government apologists in our media are some sort of truth tellers.
Remember, truth is treason in the empire of lies. And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to Washington, D.C. and their media mouthpieces.
Even where Rand and I do have minor differences of opinion, I would take Rand’s position over any of his opponents’ in both parties every time.
That’s because he advocates diplomacy and negotiations, and opposes war.
And Rand is the ONLY one in the race who is standing up for your Liberty, across the board.”
Former Texas Representative Paul directly addressed the treatment of him and of his son by legacy media during their respective campaigns for the presidency, and wrote in admiration of Senator Paul’s most recent filibuster to force the expiration of the Patriot Act.
“. . . Whether it’s filibustering to stop drones or the Patriot Act, or introducing the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, no one has fought harder for your rights than Rand,” he wrote.
“And that’s why, since the moment he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, our national media and the Big Government establishment has gone all-out to smear him or silence him.
“. . . Rand stood on the Senate floor for ten-and-a-half hours to force the Patriot Act to expire. Rand’s stamina and determination called the nation’s attention to President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional phone records collection. In the Senate, there is no greater champion of the Fourth Amendment and no one as fearless in staring down the establishment, Republican or Democrat.”
“. . . And don’t forget Rand’s first filibuster exposing the Obama administration’s lawless use of drones, earning attacks from U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and ‘wacko bird’ name-calling from Senator John McCain,” he said. “His historic 13-hour filibuster galvanized the American people unlike anything you and I have ever seen!”
Perhaps acknowledging the opinions of his son held by liberty-minded individuals like Horton and McCarthy, the elder Paul admitted in his letter, “The truth is, Rand needs our grassroots army of liberty lovers more than ever.
“The national media and the establishment of both parties would love nothing more than to drive a stake through the heart of our Liberty Movement and stop Rand at all costs.
“They’re going all-out to destroy him just like they tried to destroy me. And if they succeed, they’ll go on to even more spending, spying, welfare and warfare in Washington, D.C.”
Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-FL) was asked about his deciding vote to give President Obama Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “Fast-Track Authority”, to negotiate the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP, or ObamaTrade).
It’s apparent that Rubio is a big fan of ObamaTrade.
As seen in an exclusive video below, Evan Mulch asked Rubio, “if the TPP was truly about free trade and lowering tariffs, then why wouldn’t it be a one page document? Why is the TPP hundreds of pages long?”
“Wouldn’t it be in our best effort to repeal the North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA), because NAFTA basically sent the manufacturing jobs to Mexico from the U.S.?” Mulch continued.
Rubio responded by defending Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) like NAFTA and said, “No, we have a trade surplus with virtually every country in the world that we have free trade with.”
Joshua Cook asked Curtis Ellis, who is an expert on TPP, what he thought about Rubio’s comment regard the U.S. having a trade surplus.
“It’s not true. It’s not right,” said Ellis. “The guy is either ignorant or he’s lying. This is a talking point put out by apologists for these free trade agreements.”
[See imports vs. exports 2015 : U.S. trade in goods with Mexico can be seen here. A very clear example is with South Korea.]
“He is repeating talking points given to him by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is knowingly trying to mislead us,” says Ellis.
For many, NAFTA has become a cautionary tale that warns people that these big treaties ultimately harm the U.S. economy.
“In 1993, the year before NAFTA went into effect, the United States had a $1.66 billion trade surplus with Mexico; by 1995, the first year after NAFTA had entered into force, that changed to a $15.8 billion deficit. By 2000, that annual deficit had soared to $24.5 billion, and by 2007 it hit $74.7 billion. For 2014, our trade deficit with Mexico dipped to only $53.8 billion. In 1993, the year before NAFTA, we imported around 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico. By 2005, our imports of Mexican-made vehicles had tripled to 700,000 vehicles annually, and in 2012, Mexico’s export of vehicles to the United States surpassed 1.4 million. Chrysler, Ford, and GM transferred major production facilities (and jobs) from the United States to Mexico. Our trade deficits with Canada have followed a similar path since adoption of NAFTA.”
Many have attributed massive trade deficits, joblessness through outsourcing, and a decreased standard of American living to NAFTA and other corporate-led trade deals.
It is important to note that opposing these big “trade deals” is not protectionism. Ron Paul made it clear on why he opposed NAFTA, stating that what most politicians are promoting is “managed trade” not “free trade.”
There is no way for the people to vote themselves out of the Greek debt burden, according to Ron Paul. So does Sunday’s strong “no” vote in Greece mean that the Keynesian crisis will continue?
In today’s Liberty Report, Paul discussed how 61 percent of the people in Greece voted yesterday to drop the euro, to not follow the International Monetary Fund and to get good loans. The reaction? “The markets fizzled and the market is still down, but it’s not in a panic state,” Paul said.
Daniel McAdams, co-host of the Liberty Report, said the vote reflects “the real sense of anger among Greeks, probably shared by a lot of other Europeans of the European bureaucracy.”
This problem of debt spending and bad loans is going to happen for a long time to come because of Keynesian economics, Paul said. Those in central economic planning, not only on the local level but in the European Union and the IMF, are making mistakes. “It’s like building skyscrapers with a yardstick that changes every day,” Paul said. “You have to give up on these basic principles that debt is good, debt is money.”
Philosophically, operating under Keynesian principles, governments have to come to rescue when these companies continue to accumulate debt without an corrections, Paul said. Now the Greeks are dealing with what to do with the debt. Liquidation and bankruptcy are likely the only solutions.
Watch the full episode above and check out more episodes of the Ron Paul Liberty Report here at Truth In Media.
In case you missed Ben Swann’s Truth In Media episode on ISIS watch it below:
