By Chris Rossini
It's World Series time again with the Astros and the Nationals getting ready for a big Game 7. Passions are running high, faces are being painted, and prayers are being made.
Yet, no matter which team wins the last game, there is an organization that profits --- Major League Baseball.
That's a great position to be in, is it not?
Major League Baseball doesn't care who wins. While two opposing forces duke it out, the League wins no matter what the outcome.
That's not to say that something nefarious is happening here. There's nothing unethical about it. Baseball is a glorious sport. It's a team sport with a major focus on individuality. For advocates of individual liberty, Baseball really is 'America's Game.'
Major League Baseball provides millions of consumers with the finest sports entertainment. The players are paid many millions of dollars because they produce something that is in such high demand.
Taxpayers subsidizing stadiums has to stop, of course. Those are unethical. But Major League Baseball largely deals in the voluntary and moral side of human transactions.
Now let's turn to The Swamp and the almost-completely unethical world of politics. As opposed to organizations like Major League Baseball, the political class doesn't generate one iota of wealth. The political class takes (by force) from people who create wealth.
The Swamp, in order to keep the flow of money pouring in from wealth creators, also has a desire to win no matter what.
The Swamp has "teams." -- Republicans & Democrats.
The teams have team colors and mascots. They have their own media to keep passions high, and boy are the fans of these teams passionate. They say and do some of the most vile things to members of the other "team."
Yet, no matter what happens, and no matter who "wins," The Swamp wins no-matter-what.
More wealth is confiscated by The Swamp .... More tyranny is imposed on everyone, no matter which team anyone is on.
And wouldn't know that the greatest of ironies is now upon us....
In what started out as the "land of the free," there now resides the biggest Swamp to ever exist on planet Earth!
How's that for a complete 180...?
The Swamp lives and breathes on one simple emotion --- Fear.
That one emotion is the conduit to riches.
There's the fear of the foreign boogeyman ... The fear of the weather ... The fear of employers .... The fear of other races ... other sexes ... other religions ...
The Swamp has sliced-and-diced it down to the granular level!
Because in these battles of "enemies," The Swamp wins no matter what!
The government budget never goes down. The legislation never goes away. The wars never end. The welfare never shrinks. The surveillance never stops.
This "game" is the exact opposite of something like Major League Baseball.
This is the game of the Old World.
This is the game that America's Founders wanted to escape, and the New World was the playing field for that escape.
Well, let's just say the Old World's ideas hopped across the ocean and took over the game board.
But the game isn't over.
Liberty is still the nature of every human being, no matter where they live on our planet.
Nature doesn't change.
The ability to deal with one another without using aggressive force is still an option.
The ability of not being afraid of your own shadow is still an option.
The ability of not seeing everyone else as an "enemy" because of some inconsequential difference is still an option.
The ability to ignore the media has never been more available.
The ability not to play the game at all is an option.
You can just be you, and not a Republican or Democrat with your pre-assigned "enemies."
Liberty is easy. Don't use force to get what you want.
It fits on a bumper sticker.
Despite its gigantic size, The Swamp is a temporary and ephemeral reality. Every Swamp that exists ultimately reaches its point of exhaustion. Every scheme ultimately runs out of other people's money.
But Liberty is eternal.
It really does win no matter what.
Today's Liberty Report will rip three top stories from the headlines and break down what the mainstream media is not reporting on them. What's really going on as Lebanon's government continues to melt away in the face of sustained protests? What's the new US goal in Syria and what is the chance of achieving it? And what's going on with the new surprise witness in the House impeachment effort? A Ukraine-born US military officer and ally of John Bolton on the National Security Council Staff? Worried about a drop in US support for Ukraine? Smell bad? Former US diplomat James Jatras joins today's program to go behind the headlines.
By Ron Paul
President Trump is reversing his foreign policy decisions so quickly these days that it almost seems like he overturns himself before making the decision in the first place. Last week he was very clear that the US was pulling its troops out of Syria. “Bringing soldiers home,” he said. “Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand.”
But then he overturned himself later in the same speech. He said: “We’ve secured the oil and therefore a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they have the oil. And we’re going to be protecting it and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future.”
Where does President Trump think he gets the legal or moral authority to send US troops to illegally occupy foreign territory and determine what that foreign country can or cannot do with its resources? After eight years of Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” policy, during which the US provided weapons and training to radicals and terrorists with a half million people killed as a result, President Trump had the opportunity to finally close that dark chapter of US foreign policy so the Syrian people could rebuild their country.
Instead he sat down on Thursday with Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been wrong in every foreign policy position he’s ever taken, and decided to follow Graham’s advice to take Syria’s oil. Even though Trump himself has said many times that ISIS is 100 percent defeated, he claims we must take Syria’s oil to keep it from ISIS.
The real reason the neocons want the US military to occupy Syria’s oil fields is they are still convinced they can overthrow Assad by carving out eastern Syria for the Kurds. They don’t want to keep the oil from ISIS, they want to keep it from the Syrian government. They don’t want the oil revenue to be used to help rebuild the country because they still want to make life more unbearable for the population through sanctions so they will overthrow Assad. They don’t care how many innocent civilians die.
So instead of bringing the troops home like he promised, President Trump has allowed himself to be convinced to actually expand the US presence in eastern Syria! Instead of ending a foolish mission, he’s giving them an even more foolish mission – and sending in more troops and weapons. Instead of removing the approximately 200 troops in that region as promised, Trump is going to add more troops to equal about a thousand. He’s also sending in tanks and other armored vehicles, according to the Pentagon.
If President Trump believes following neocon advice on Syria is going to produce results different than the past eight years of following neocon advice on Syria, he’s naïve or worse. This new mission is going to cost tens of millions of dollars per month and will only serve to inspire the next generation of radicals. Trump is right that the people of the region, including Russia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey have all the incentive to keep ISIS at bay. So why does he fold like a cheap suit every time the neocons strong-arm him into another dumb foreign policy position?
Homeschooler Ardaschir Arguelles shares the secrets to his great academic success with the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum. Why let government schools turn kids into drones when there's a much better way? Easy for the parents and inspirational for the students. Interested? Go to: http://www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information and to try the program for FREE!
The U.S. government & it's monopoly money-printer known as The Federal Reserve have painted themselves into a bankruptcy corner. Not only are more and more foreign nations rejecting America's aggressive and militant foreign policy, but they're also ripping themselves away from the The Fed's dollar. Foreign central banks are increasingly gravitating to sound money like gold. The Fed is on its last legs. All this and more on today's Liberty Report!
By Norm Singleton
President Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at improving diagnosis and treatment of kidney patients. One part of the order aims to incentivize kidney donations by providing donors compensation for lost wages and child care expenses incurred as a result of their act of donating.
While there is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to provide compensation to organ donors—and certainly not for the president to do so via executive order—President Trump’s order could set a precedent that authorizes donor compensation, and it could ultimately lead to a true free-market in organ donations.
Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul wrote an op-ed on solving the organ transplant crisis in 2014.
You can read about the president’s executive order on kidney care here.
Here is Dr. Paul’s column from 2014:
Let Market Forces Solve Organ Transplant Crisis
This article was originally published at The Campaign for Liberty.
President Trump yesterday claimed he would be leaving US troops in Syria to make sure no one takes the oil. Leaving aside who's oil it actually is (hint: it's in Syria), what are the logistics and what is the wisdom of leaving a couple of hundred US troops dispersed through Syria to guard oil facilities? Good move? Dumb move?
President Trump announced this morning that the US would continue to withdraw from Syria and allow the countries in the region to solve their own border disputes. He claims the US was 100 percent responsible for the destruction of ISIS. He blamed the Obama Administration for not removing Assad, blaming him for gassing his own people. Is the war over?
By Ron Paul
Schoolchildren across the country recently skipped school or walked out of class to rally for new restrictions on our economic and personal liberties in the name of fighting “climate change.” Instead of punishing students for playing hooky to promote a political cause, many teachers and administrators allowed, or even encouraged, students to skip school to attend these events. Public schools have also given students the day off to attend pro-gun control rallies.
The trend toward allowing students to miss school for political protests is an example of how indoctrination in left-wing ideology and politics has replaced actual education in many government schools. Some teachers may have seen their students’ eagerness to show support for authoritarian policies like the “Green New Deal” as confirmation of the teachers’ success in convincing students that the “science is settled” regarding climate change. The truth is that science regarding the causes, extent, and effects of climate change is far from settled. But you won’t learn that in most government schools.
Misleading students on climate change is far from the only, or even the worst, example of how student education is being shortchanged in order to promote socialism and its cousin, cultural Marxism. Government schools in Seattle are implementing a program called “Math Ethnic Studies.” As the title suggests, this replaces traditional mathematics with a curriculum built around the insane idea that math is not an objective truth, but a construct reflecting the interests of society’s dominant economic, social, and racial groups.
Among the questions the students are supposed to ask in this new curriculum are, “how is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression in society?” and “who’s to say what is right?” In other words, two plus two may or may not equal four depending on one’s group identity.
Students who take this course may not be qualified to become scientists or engineers, but they will be qualified to agitate for expanded welfare and new limits on free speech in the name of “social justice.”
The politicization and dumbing down of government education does have an upside: it is leading more parents to pull their children out of government schools and homeschool instead. Homeschooling allows parents to ensure their children receive a quality education that does not undermine their political or other values.
Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education should consider my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own businesses.
The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education.
Interactive forums ensure students are engaged in their education and that they have the opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.
I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools — alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty without sacrificing education for indoctrination — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.
By Chris Rossini
We are all born as free and independent individuals. But coming to know and understand what that means has been quite the issue for mankind, to say the least.
Those who attempt to smear advocates of liberty, will often point out that to be free means that you can do whatever you want, to whomever you want, with no restrictions. This is a very amateurish argument, of course.
The truth is we are individuals (which necessarily means we are not omnipotent). Since we are not omnipotent, there are limits to our liberty, and those limits are the person, property and liberty of other individuals!
That's why the ideas of Liberty rest on a solid foundation known as the "Non-aggression Principle." It means exactly what it looks like it means. No one (that is no individual, or group of individuals) has the natural right to use aggressive force against any other individual.
When an individual uses aggressive force, he is acting against his nature, and has taken on the role of a tyrant. We're all free to choose, which necessarily means, we're free to choose to act like a tyrant.
But violence is only justified to ward off an aggressor --- someone who chooses to use violence against you. Violence is justified to protect yourself from those individuals who choose to be tyrants.
A vast majority of people, when reading of such an ethic will agree with it. However, tyrants are crafty. They can twist words with tremendous skill to not only convince people that tyranny is necessary, but oftentimes people will even beg for it!
Take Socialism for example. It rests on the abolition of private property rights, which necessarily means an abolition of Liberty. Seems like a tall order right? Well, socialist propagandists make their utopias sound sugary sweet.
Socialism rests on the use of aggressive force; to take from one in order to give to another.
The 1900's was mankind's 'Socialist Century' and it led to what has been estimated to be 100 million deaths of innocents at the hands of their own governments ... and that's not counting deaths from wars!
One of the biggest, if not biggest, Socialist tyrants was Mao Zedong of China.
What ethic did Mao have?
Jung Chang writes in his book: Mao: The Unknown Story:
In the winter of 1917–18, still a student as he turned twenty-four, [Mao] wrote extensive commentaries on a book called A System of Ethics ... In these notes, Mao expressed the central elements in his own character, which stayed consistent for the remaining six decades of his life and defined his rule.
Isn't that interesting?
Mao's ethic was the exact one that is used to smear advocates of Liberty!
His ethic was "I" and nothing else mattered. There were no natural limits. The "I" of any other individual didn't matter.
Yet, to repeat one more time, the ethic of Liberty and Freedom is explicitly defined by one's relation to others.
Liberty is simple:
- First, do no harm.
- Live and Let Live.
- I'll keep my hands off you and your stuff, and you keep your hands off me and my stuff.
- NO AGGRESSIVE FORCE
One cannot take unethical means and use them to create ethical ends.
Theft can never be virtuous.
The Socialist Century proved that in spades.