 By John McCardell
Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul issued a statement regarding recent revelations that the FBI has potentially been spying on domestic organizations, including Campaign for Liberty. CATO Institute scholar Patrick Eddington submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, asking whether the bureau had ever conducted warrantless surveillance on a number of pro-civil liberties groups, including Campaign for Liberty. The FBI's response was that it could “neither confirm nor deny” that they have been spying on Campaign for Liberty. In Mr. Eddington's professional experience, such a denial from the government typically means the affirmative. Dr. Paul — “The idea that the FBI would target Campaign for Liberty for surveillance should outrage every American. Our work to educate, train, and mobilize grassroots activists for the cause of limited government and individual liberty is precisely the type of activity the Founders were most interested in protecting when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution. “The FBI has so little regard for American’s constitutional rights that they refuse to even give a straight answer when asked if they are, or have ever, subjected Campaign of Liberty to any form of surveillance. “Campaign for Liberty will continue to work to pressure Congress to do their duty and uncover the truth about FBI spying on us and other organizations and rein in all rogue federal agencies that violate our liberties in the name of keeping us safe.” For background information, see here.
A conservative veterans group dedicated to bringing US troops home from pointless overseas conflicts is making waves in the Republican Party. Bring Our Troops Home founder Dan McKnight joins today's Liberty Report to discuss their recent successes in heavily red states.
Two Sets of 100 yr Periods in American History --- Each Guided by Completely Opposite Ideas1/8/2020
By Chris Rossini
The great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote: "History is a struggle between two principles, the peaceful principle, which advances the development of trade, and the militarist-imperialist principle, which interprets human society not as a friendly division of labour but as the forcible repression of some of its members by others." America was founded on the peaceful principle. The country's first President, George Washington, said in his farewell address: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world". This policy, which can be packaged into the euphemism "America First" was the guiding policy for the first 100+ years of the country's existence. America truly was independent. This did not mean that America was "isolationist." Far from it, of course. Thomas Jefferson explained at his inaugural that the policy was one of: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." Here was a land, the largest free-trade zone to ever exist, shielded by giant oceans, with a limited government that only had a few enumerated powers. The individual was master of his domain. The results were Earth-shattering and life-changing -- Prosperity, the likes of which have never existed before. But alas, after 100+ years passed, new generations with little to no connection (or care) for the ideas of Washington & Jefferson, decided to change course for the worse. The 'Old World' ideas of power and empire crept in through the back door. In this new embrace of the 'Old World,' the individual would no longer be the master of his domain. Government would be the master. Suddenly, in 1898, after much careful planning by those who had an insatiable lust for power, America would take on the role of conquerer. And conquer it did. In a single year, the United States took control of five far-flung nations, which contained 11 million people, all in one fell-swoop. Washington & Jefferson were tossed into the dustbin. Independence was cast aside. Intervention was the new game in town. In 1898, the slow death of "America First" was given its first real kick to the chops. Of course, the original role of government would have to be transformed. If America was to have an empire, it would have to take control of every American citizen's earnings. And so, in 1913, with the creation of the income tax, every American's earnings would belong to the government first. The government would decide how much each person would be allowed to keep. What a drastic change for the worse! But an income tax would not be enough. After all, government can only tax people up to a certain point before they decide to revolt. American politicians, of all people, knew that! So an even more insidious institution would be created, also in 1913. It would be called The Federal Reserve. This central bank would be granted a monopoly on counterfeiting money. How much money? As much money as the government needs in order to sprawl itself around the world. Every American would be forced to use this "money," of course, even though its purchasing power would be constantly eroded. Legal Tender Laws would make sure that there was no way out. And so, with an income tax and a printing press, the Land of The Free would morph, over the next 100+ years, into the biggest government to ever exist ... the biggest military empire to ever exist ... and the biggest welfare state to ever exist. Washington & Jefferson would not recognize this at all. It's literally the exact opposite of why the 13 colonies seceded from England. This new era of empire would be dominated by "Bread and Circuses". There would be plenty of food, and plenty of entertainment. What happens outside of America would remain out-of-sight and out-of-mind. All political fighting inside of America would take place between two virtually indistinguishable factions. The gangs would passionately battle each other, but they would never battle the policy of empire. Policy is the only thing that matters. But Americans would be flooded with a deluge of propaganda telling them that the ability to change politicians is a gift from the heavens. That, they would be told, is the only thing that matters. And so, throughout this period, the politicians would certainly change, but the policy wouldn't budge even a single inch. In other words, the politicians would change....but it wouldn't matter! So now we have two sets of 100 year periods in American history, each guided by completely opposite ideas. The first produced liberty and prosperity in tremendous abundance. The second has produced a dependency, militancy and debauchery that has always been the lot of mankind living under the boot of power. The first was underpinned by peace, trade, sound money, savings and investment. The second has been underpinned by war, sanctions, counterfeit money, taxes, and crushing debt. Those who live are always presented with a choice -- continue, or change? Change happens through individual choice. The ideas that we each individually embrace mean everything. Power lives and breathes on your belief in it. Why do you think you're surrounded by propaganda at every turn? For fun? No! ... It's to keep you believing. It's to convince you that liberty is dead. However, if you change your belief, you change everything. You breathe life into the idea of liberty. If you breathe life into the idea of liberty, you make America a much better place. Washington left us with these wonderful words: "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." The choice is always yours.....continue, or change?
How could a "draft letter" from the US CENTCOM to the Iraqi leadership announcing the US withdrawal from Iraq have mysteriously leaked to the media yesterday? Is operational security so shattered that what must be a highly classified document can just drop from the sky? Or is there something else behind it?
By Ron Paul
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. I don’t believe them. Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran. And before Trump’s obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on. At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat” that we must “take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don’t believe them. President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran’s retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for nothing. In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament? Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas. There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America’s sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East!
President Trump and Mike Pompeo told us that Iranian Gen. Soleimani had to be assassinated when he was in Baghdad at the end of last week because he was on a mission to plan and implement attacks on US military and diplomatic personnel in the region. But their story is not holding up very well, as reports surface that he was on a peace mission and other US claims are not adding up. So...why was he killed?
By Adam Dick In a Friday interview with host Rick Sanchez at RT regarding the United States government’s assassination of Iran General Qassim Suleimani at the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq, peace advocate and former presidential candidate Ron Paul declared that “the best thing that could happen in the immediate future” is for Iraq to tell the US government to “get out.” Paul, in the interview, also counters the argument that the US had to kill Suleimani “to save American lives,” stating that he feels “less safe” after the assassination. Watch the complete interview here: Many Iraqis, including in the nation’s parliament, agree with Paul regarding the presence of US troop in Iraq. The Iraq parliament on Sunday passed a resolution calling for ending the presence of US troops in Iraq, a move Iraq’s prime minister also supports. 
Yesterday President Trump ordered the assassination of senior Iraqi and Iranian military leaders in Baghdad, claiming without evidence that they were plotting against Americans in Iraq. While neocons and the media cheer the attack, no one seems interested in asking "what's the end game"? Especially as Iraq now urgently wants US troops out of the country. Is Trump going to go to war with Iraq (again) AND Iran?
President Trump is swallowing the neocon line on the Iraqi protests at the US embassy in Baghdad, blaming the whole incident on Iran. Suddenly everyone who doesn't want the US military to continue to occupy Iraq - nearly 17 years after an invasion based on lies - is an "Iranian proxy." Will Trump continue to take the neocon bait and stumble his way into a war on Iran? Starting a war based on neocon lies is likely the only thing that would prevent his re-election.
|
Archives
July 2026
 
 
 
 
|
RSS Feed