The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results

for:

How Fanatics Took Over the World

undefined

Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
read on...

'Waking Up in 1978' - RPI's Daniel McAdams on Biden's Euro-trip

Have we all fallen asleep and woken up in 1978? RPI's Daniel McAdams questions the need for President Biden to be signing updated "Atlantic Alliances" with his counterparts in the UK and Europe. Washington just needs to create more enemies to keep filled up with taxpayers' money. Watch the short clip here...
read on...

CDC — shh! — has a COVID shot ‘heart inflammation’ emergency

undefined

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will hold an “emergency meeting” of advisers to talk about the higher-than-expected numbers of young men who’ve experienced heart inflammation after taking doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against coronavirus. Shh!

That is, after taking doses of the entirely experimental, never-before-approved-for-use-in-any-disease mRNA vaccines against coronavirus.

Remember, these vaccines are labeled “emergency use authorization” for a reason. And that reason is the side effects, both short-term and long-term, and most definitely longest-haul-term, are completely unknown.

That means those who take the vaccine are taking one for the government. They’re taking a chance that the government is giving them chemicals that help, not harm. They’re trusting that when the bureaucrats in the government say they’re here to help, that they’re honestly, truly, irrefutably and undeniably, cross-their-fingers-hope-to-die here to help.
read on...

You are not God, Dr Fauci. If science was never challenged, we would never make any progress

undefined

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent suggestion that attacks on him are attacks on science itself is nonsensical. His attitude towards criticism is a prime example of scientism, which treats people in scientific fields with undue reverence.

There has been an interesting cultural fight within the culture war over science itself. Many people on the political left have a tendency to place scientific method on a pedestal and not consider it for what it is – which is, purely and simply, scientific method. 

Rather, they treat science as a sort of dogma which cannot be challenged. In a sense, their attitude towards it is not that different from a Christian’s outlook on the Bible. A Christian believes that the Bible is God’s word, and is static and unchanging because of the nature of God himself. 

However, the nature of science is not static because our understanding of the world is not static. As such, it’s appalling when someone who wields as much influence and political power as America’s chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks in a manner that treats science as a dogma.
read on...

Did Your 'Jab' Come from Convicted Felons?

undefined

Would you be comfortable inviting a convicted sex offender to babysit your 8 year-old daughter for the evening? I know what you’re thinking, “That’s preposterous, what a ridiculous question! Who in their right mind would ever consider such nonsense?”
read on...

SecDef Austin: 'Start ACTING Like China Is Top Enemy!'

A 100 day review of US policy toward China has determined - surprise! - that not only is China the top threat, but that the Pentagon needs to stop jawboning the threat and start acting on it...whatever that means. The policy review was conducted by a former employee of the Center for a New American Security...which is funded by weapons manufacturers and foreign governments including Taiwan! Also today: Has Fauci jumped the shark with his 'I am Science!' pronouncement? Today on the Liberty Report...
read on...

Debunking The Photo Op Myth: Inspector General Investigation Refutes Media Account On The Clearing Of Lafayette Park

undefined

For over a year, there has been one fact that has been repeated in literally thousands of news stories: former Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the clearing of Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020 to allow former President Donald Trump to hold his controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. From the outset, there was ample reason to question the claim echoed across media outlets. As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest that month, the operation was clearly a response to days of violent and destructive protests. Now the Inspector General has completed its investigation and the report debunks the conspiracy theory that the Lafayette Square area was cleared to make way for the Trump photo op.

While many today still claim that the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. It is only plausible if one looks at the level of violence at the start of the clearing operation as opposed to the prior 48 hours. There was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during the protests. In addition to a reported 150 officers were injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.

The expansion of the perimeter with the fencing was a logical and necessary move. It is the same decision reached (and indeed the same fencing) by Congress when it responded to January 6 riot this year. Absent such fencing, an extremely dangerous situation could have arisen where a major breach of the White House perimeter would have triggered the use of lethal force with the potential of a major loss of life.
read on...

Biden-Putin Summit: Boon or Bust?

undefined

Reading the tea leaves a week before Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin meet in Geneva puts a premium on the kind of media analysis we old-school Kremlinologists had to rely on back in the day. Not all rhetoric is equal though; it is just as important to make an honest attempt to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding a major initiative like the summit proposal. The weird timing of the invitation cries out for explanation.

You Asked For It, Joe

Lest we forget, President Biden suggested a summit with Putin in the midst of very high tension over Ukraine. On March 24 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued an official decree that Ukraine would take Crimea back from Russia; Kiev’s strategy includes "military measures" to achieve "de-occupation." US and NATO voice "unwavering" (rhetorical) support for Zelensky, who sends tons of military equipment south and east. Russia sends troops and arms south and west into Crimea and the border area opposite Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern Ukraine.

One Day in April

The following refresher on what all went down on April 13 may throw some light on why – in such tense circumstances – Biden proposed a summit with Putin.

- NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg slams Russia for sending "thousands of combat-ready troops to Ukraine’s borders."

- Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu says, in effect, Yes, Stoltenberg has that right; Moscow has sent "two armies and three airborne formations to western regions" over the prior three weeks.

read on...


Authors

Tags