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

Search Results

for:

America’s Gestapo: The FBI’s Reign of Terror

Tuesday March 15, 2016

undefined

“Don’t Be a Puppet” is the message the FBI is sending young Americans.

As part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the nation’s de facto secret police force is now recruiting students and teachers to spy on each other and report anyone who appears to have the potential to be “anti-government” or “extremist.”

Using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that could distinguish an individual as a potential domestic terrorist.

For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:

express libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)

exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership)

read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books

show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)

fear an economic collapse

read on...

The US Middle East Killing Racket

Tuesday March 15, 2016

undefined

Consider the following two headlines during the past three weeks:

“U.S. Strike Kills ‘150 al-Shabaab Terrorists’ in Somalia” (March 7, The Telegraph)

“49 Killed in U.S. Airstrike Targeting Terrorists in Libya” (February 20, CNN)

The reason for the Somalia killings? US officials say that the 150 dead people were terrorists who were planning to carry out an attack in Somalia.

The reason for the Libya killings? US officials say that the 49 dead people were ISIS terrorists.

Now, let’s just take US officials at their word. Let’s assume that all the people they killed were terrorists who were planning to carry out attacks in Somalia and Libya.

Questions naturally arises: What business is that of the US government? Under what constitutional authority does the US national-security establishment kill people with impunity overseas? How do we really know that they were guilty? What impact will those killings have on the American people, especially in terms of terrorist retaliation?
read on...

Kerry Sought Missile Strikes to Force Syria's Assad to Step Down

Monday March 14, 2016

undefined

Jeffrey Goldberg’s newly published book-length article on Barack Obama and the Middle East includes a major revelation that brings US Secretary of State John Kerry’s Syrian diplomacy into sharper focus: it reports that Kerry has sought on several occasions without success over the past several months to get Obama’s approval for cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government. 

That revelation shows that Kerry’s strategy in promoting the Syrian peace negotiations in recent months was based on much heavier pressure on the Assad regime to agree that President Bashar al-Assad must step down than was apparent. It also completes a larger story of Kerry as the primary advocate in the administration of war in Syria ever since he became Secretary of State in early 2013.

Goldberg reports that “on several occasions” Kerry requested that Obama approve missile strikes at “specific regime targets”, in order to “send a message” to Assad – and his international allies – to “negotiate peace”. Kerry suggested to Obama that the US wouldn’t have to acknowledge the attacks publicly, according to Goldberg, because Assad “would surely know the missiles’ return address”.
read on...

Chicago Political Violence: Whose Fault?

Monday March 14, 2016

Violence and the threat of violence let Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to cancel his scheduled rally in Chicago recently. Organized groups, some funded by "regime change" donor George Soros, have vowed to prevent Trump from holding rallies at all. Meanwhile Trump has used inflammatory rhetoric at rallies, urging supporters to use violence against disruptors. The other presidential candidates have blamed all the violence on Trump, but their admonishments ring hypocritical. For example, while Hillary Clinton condemns Trump's words that may have resulted in a few punches being thrown, her own words -- in particular her tireless advocacy for a US attack on Libya -- resulted in tens of thousands being killed. Which is worse? Likewise, Ted Cruz condemns Trump's rhetoric while at the same time he openly speaks of using nuclear weapons against the people of the Middle East. What is worse? The others are no different. We cover this difficult topic in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

Loretta Lynch and the Government War on Free Speech

Sunday March 13, 2016

undefined

During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers. Attorney General Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change.

These climate change censors claim that the argument over climate change is settled and the deniers’ success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma. This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change.
read on...

The Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III

Saturday March 12, 2016

undefined

Maidhc Ó Cathail: In your latest book, you dub Hillary Clinton the “Queen of Chaos”. Can you explain why you chose this derogatory sobriquet to describe Hillary?

Diana Johnstone: Libya, in a word. Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a “Clinton doctrine”, meaning a “smart power” regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.  

The Libyan catastrophe actually inspired me to write this book, along with the mounting danger of war with Russia.

War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary’s vaunted “foreign policy experience”.
read on...

Food Farm Freedom: Mr. Salatin Goes to Washington

Saturday March 12, 2016

undefined

The nonprofit Food Tank recently posed 10 questions on food policy to the presidential candidates in the 2016 race. Joel Salatin throws his hat in the ring and answers. 

1. In 2014, a group of leaders in the food justice movement, including food writer, Michael Pollan, and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, argued that the United States was in urgent need of a National Food Policy. Do you agree? If so, how do you plan to implement this policy?

Joel Salatin: I haven’t seen many helpful policies come out of the federal government. Official policy currently includes the right to patent life (GMOs), the right to indiscriminately spray toxic poisons all over the environment, encouragement to feed cows dead chickens and chicken manure, subsidies for land-destroying farming practices, dietary guidelines that refuse to differentiate between Twinkies and fresh-sprouted whole wheat sourdough bread. I don’t see any positives from these policies and don’t see any national will to alter these policies. Until someone can show me that more Americans want grass-finished beef and compost-grown tomatoes than their nutrient-deficient cheap counterparts, I think we’d better quit making policy to let things sort out on their own. Often the best policy is to take your hands off the airplane controls and let the plane establish its own equilibrium. We’d actually be a much healthier nation had the federal government never created a food pyramid or pushed hydrogenated vegetable oils. Since we’ve tried federal government meddling and it’s yielded disastrous results, how about we try having the federal government stand down and see what happens? Maybe we heretics would have a better chance of getting our message across instead of being burned at the stake by the USDA, FDA, Monsanto and the fraternity of orthodoxy that runs Washington.
read on...

Alternative Germany Speaks Up

Friday March 11, 2016

undefined

The final results of the local elections in the central German state of Hesse last Sunday were a cold shower for the ruling coalition. The new opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) won seats in every municipal council in that state, receiving an unprecedented 16.2% of the vote in Hesse’s capital of Wiesbaden. They even pulled in approximately 12% in cosmopolitan Frankfurt am Main – the largest city in Hesse, where voter turnout was a record low (37.3%).

All in all, the AfD picked up more than twice (!) as many votes in Hesse as had been predicted. This success will likely be repeated during the state parliament elections in Baden-Württemberg, Rheinland-Pfalz, and Saxony-Anhalt on March 13.

Such a showing is undoubtedly the direct and logical outcome of the chancellor’s policy on migrants, which is viewed by many Germans as a betrayal of their national interests. Given that Hesse is one of the most prosperous states in Germany, the March voting patterns showed a drastic shift in electoral preferences. The one and a half million socially disruptive Middle Eastern asylum seekers currently on German territory, in addition to the growing indignation of ordinary burghers over these unwanted guests, are certainly burdens for which Merkel must accept full electoral responsibility.
read on...

Clinton Declares That She Will Never Be Indicted And Insists That Her 'Predecessors Did The Same Thing' On Emails

Thursday March 10, 2016

undefined

I watched last night’s debate with great interest. I thought both Sanders and Clinton had some very strong moments. However, I tend to watch these debates for the legal issues and I was most struck by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s discussion of the email scandal. First, she declared that she will never be indicted — a statement that may irritate federal investigations looking into possible crimes. She certainly has defenses and the odds may indeed favor her. However, defense attorneys usually discourage such statements from potential targets which can enrage prosecutors as presumptuous or suggesting some level of immunity. Second, she insisted that her “predecessors did the same thing” that she did on emails — a statement that is demonstrably untrue but again was left unchallenged by the journalists.

The Indictment Question

We previously discussed the controversy of the White House stating that the investigation was not moving toward any criminal charges — a statement would indicate either a sweeping assumption or an improper degree of consultation between the White House and the Justice Department on an ongoing investigation. As discussed below, having a personal server is not a crime. Mishandling classified material (or related classification violations) or evading federal laws can be. It would be premature to dismiss or predict an indictment. While the odds may be in her favor, it would be obviously absurd to say that no indictment is possible. It depends on the evidence, which remains largely unknown.

There is of course no way for Clinton to know about what will happen with the indictment. Given that she is running on the theme of “no one too big to jail,” the dismissing of the notion of an indictment is a tad incongruous. She certainly has support for saying that recent cases have resulted in relatively light punishment.
read on...

Conservatives Want More War Spending, The People Disagree

Thursday March 10, 2016

Suggesting that hawk politicians are out of touch with the American people, a new non-partisan poll conducted by the University of Maryland showed that Americans would on average like to see the military budget decrease by $12 billion. Democrats and independents wanted even deeper cuts, but not even Republican voters wanted to see more money spent on the military. Could this by why the neocon-favored uberhawk Marco Rubio is going down in flames in the presidential primary? What is the lesson for other politicians? Finally a good news story today in the Liberty Report...
read on...

Subscribe

Authors

Tags