 By Adam Dick Former United States Hose of Representatives member and presidential candidate Ron Paul is not too impressed with the ongoing impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the US Senate. The impeachment trial is “pure politicking,“ declares Paul in a new interview at TRT World focused in the impeachment trial. Paul further comments in the interview: It’s always been said that impeachment is a political process. Well that’s an understatement when you look at what’s going on now. With wrongdoing being pursued by politicians both Republican and Democrat in DC, Paul assesses in the interview that the real battle taking place is over “who’s going be the boss of this” and “who’s going to control the largess.” Watch Paul’s complete interview here: 
One of the architects of the CIA's post-9/11 torture program was in court this week to testify in the pre-trial proceedings of several Guantanamo detainees. His justification for designing and practicing some of the most inhuman practices on earth should give pause to Americans with a conscience. Do we really reject torture?
By Chris Rossini
Humans act....all day long. Human action is purposeful behavior. In other words, we purposefully choose an end, and then choose the means that we believe will attain that end. Now you may say to me: "That's not true, I'm sitting here right now relaxing on my couch and doing nothing. I'm not acting." No...you've purposely chosen an end (i.e., relaxation). You've also purposefully chosen the means to attain that end (i.e., sitting down on the couch). You then purposefully chose to try to educate me (an end) by speaking to me (means) and saying that 'you're not acting.' It should be obvious that you are. So we're always purposefully acting. We're always choosing ends and means. The ends and means that we choose are always those that we value most in the present moment. Right now, you may be relaxing on the couch, but if you were white-water rafting, and were thrown out of your raft into tumultuous waters, the end of relaxation would (most likely) not be your highest value. First, you wouldn't have the means available to relax, and second, survival and not drowning would (most likely) be your highest value in that moment. You'd (most likely) scan your environment and use any knowledge that you may have acquired, in trying to find the means to survive. Notice that I keep using the words "most likely." Why? Because every individual is free and has the liberty to choose his or her own values. It is our nature to always be free to choose. We choose our values...We choose our ends...We choose the means. While being thrown around by the tumultuous waters, you may decide that your time is up. You're not afraid of death, you've lived a good life, and it's time to go. No one knows your life, your beliefs and your situation better than you. What you value most in each moment is always your decision. Now let's talk ethics. Since, in every waking moment we are each acting with purpose, and everyone else is doing the exact same thing, what is the ethical way for human beings to interact with one another? The ideas of Liberty (or libertarianism) comes in at this moment. The ethical way to act is by the principle of non-aggression. No force against the person or property of anyone else. Whatever value (or end) you choose, you're responsible for making sure it doesn't harm the body or property of another individual. The same goes for the means that you choose. You can't force another person against his will in order to achieve your end, or take or damage his property. That's the ethic of Liberty. It's so simple a child can understand it. Now, because we are free, it necessarily means we are free to ignore the ethic of Liberty. We are free to adopt the ethics of the Stone Age. We are free to rob, steal and cheat people. We are free to use force to achieve our ends. We can choose right, or wrong. That's what it means to be free. We're always presented with the choice of Liberty or Stone Age. Unfortunately, Stone Age is a very old and very popular choice. This Stone Age ethic was (long ago) wrapped up and institutionalized in a man-made idea called government. The ethic became "legalized." The only question has always been "who" would dish out the force. The battle to become the "who" has always been a vicious one. No rules ... no truth ... no standards ... no principles .. no ethics. To expect anything else from people whose lust is to dish out force, would be incredibly naive. Of course they're ruthless in their quest for the ring of power. And of course they're ruthless when they get it. So the choice of Liberty or Stone Age is always at hand. When the ethic of Liberty dominates, mankind leaps forward. When the Stone Age ethic dominates, the quality of life and standard of living shrivels. This is in general, of course. One can choose a life of Liberty and thrive no matter which one dominates. We live in the most amazing technological age. Our ability to communicate good ideas has never been better. The prospects for the Liberty ethic are magnificent! However, there's always the downward pull of the Stone Age ethic. Doug Casey recently said: The danger is that technology and ethics are not evolving at the same rate. Even worse, people are putting more emphasis on politics—organized coercion—today than has ever been the case in the past.
It's time to ditch the Stone Age ethics.
The ethic of Liberty is FAR superior. Its day in the Sun is long overdue. 
By Norman Singleton
With the Senate impeachment trial dominating headlines this week, it seems appropriate to look back on what Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul said about the 1998 impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton. At a press conference the week of the impeachment vote, Dr. Paul explained that his vote to impeach Clinton was because of Clinton waging military actions in the Mid-East. Through 1998, Clinton launched a series of attacks in the Mid-East that (coincidentally I am sure) just happened to coincide with major developments in the impeachment saga. Yet most Republicans refused to speak out against this abuse of presidential power. You can see Dr. Paul’s remarks below. Note that Dr. Paul warned that Clinton’s unconstitutional war-making could lead to terrorist attacks against the United States, so he was talking about blowback years before 9-11.
This article was originally published at Campaign for Liberty.
Former OPCW inspector Ian Henderson testified to the UN Security Council this week that his team's report on the April 2018 alleged gas attack in Douma, Syria, had been falsified at the orders of senior management and perhaps under pressure from the US government. The US mainstream media is silent.
Yesterday's Virginia pro-Second Amendment rally shocked the elites to their core. Propagandized by the mainstream media, they expected out-of-control white supremacists but found a peaceful group of all races and orientations. More importantly, the local government nullification movement is growing like wildfire, with local authorities openly vowing they would not enforce gun laws passed in Richmond that they consider unconstitutional.
By Ron Paul
Cato Institute Research Fellow Patrick Eddington recently filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out if the Federal Bureau of Investigation ever conducted surveillance of several organizations dealing with government policy, including my Campaign for Liberty. Based on the FBI’s response, Campaign for Liberty and other organizations, including the Cato institute and the Reason Foundation, may have been subjected to FBI surveillance or other data collection. I say “may have been” because the FBI gave Mr. Eddington a “Glomar response” to his FOIA requests pertaining to these organizations. A Glomar response is where an agency says it can “neither confirm nor deny” involvement in a particular activity. Glomar was a salvage ship the Central Intelligence Agency used to recover a sunken Soviet submarine in the 1970s. In response to a FOIA request by Rolling Stone magazine, the CIA claimed that just confirming or denying the Glomar’s involvement in the salvage operation would somehow damage national security. A federal court agreed with the agency, giving federal bureaucrats, and even local police departments, a new way to avoid giving direct answers. The Glomar response means these organizations may have been, and may still be, subjected to federal surveillance. As Mr. Eddington told Reason magazine, "We know for a fact that Glomar invocations have been used to conceal actual, ongoing activities, and we also know that they're not passing out Glomars like candy." Protecting the right of individuals to join together in groups to influence government policy is at the very heart of the First Amendment. Therefore, the FBI subjecting such groups to surveillance can violate the constitutional rights of everyone involved with the groups. The FBI has a long history of targeting Americans whose political beliefs and activities threaten the FBI’s power or the power of influential politicians. The then-named Bureau of Investigation participated in the crackdown on people suspected of being communists in the post-World War I “Red Scare.” The anti-communist crackdown was headed by a young agent named J. Edgar Hoover who went on to become FBI director, a position he held until his death. Hoover kept and expanded his power by using the FBI to collect blackmail material on people including politicians. In the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI spied on supporters of the America First movement, including several Congress members. Two of the most famous examples of FBI targeting individuals based on their political activities are the harassment of Martin Luther King Jr. and the COINTELPRO program. COINTELPRO was an organized effort to spy on and actively disrupt “subversive” organizations, including antiwar groups COINTELPRO officially ended in the 1970s. However, the FBI still targets individuals and organizations it considers “subversive,” including antiwar groups and citizen militias. Congress must hold hearings to determine if the FBI is currently using unconstitutional methods to “monitor” any organizations based on their beliefs. Congress must then take whatever steps necessary to ensure that no Americans are ever again targeted for surveillance because of their political beliefs and activities.
A new book on Trump by Washington Post writers, "A Very Stable Genius," has tongues wagging and new accusations of the president's "instability." As usual, these politicized claims miss the target completely and also misunderstand the real war for Trump's ear. The generals are out, the "realists" were never quite in, there is little "America First" in the president's foreign policy, and, with reports that David Wurmser has the president's ear on Iran, the neocons are creeping back in.
"Trade Deals" are government-managed trade. Government-managed trade is political, which means politically-connected industries benefit. Free Trade is the only "trade deal" that benefits everyone. NO government interference with the economic lives and transactions of Americans. But instead of Free Trade, we have a crony system that many Americans despise -- the marriage of corporations and government, always working hand-in-hand.
|
Archives
January 2025
 
 
 
 
|
RSS Feed