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

Peace and Prosperity

5M5I: Warmongers Party, Obama Distortion, Trump on War, Lying Cops, Free Speech


A new episode of Five Minutes Five Issues posted today. You can listen to it, and read a transcript, below. You can also find all episodes of the show at SoundCloudYouTube, and Stitcher. The show will soon be available via iTunes as well.

Listen to the show here:



Read a transcript of the show, including links to further information regarding the topics discussed, here:

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity welcomes you to Five Minutes Five Issues.

Starting in five four three two one.

Hello, I am Adam Dick, a Ron Paul Institute senior fellow.

Let’s start.

Issue one.

In January, Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams wrote of Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin as the “neocon nag” who — looking across the “bloody landscape” of the United States government’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria — sees “a beautiful work in progress.” Rubin is described differently in her Post biography. That biography refers to her as “offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.”

In her Friday column, Rubin says conservatives should not support Donald Trump and should, instead, support “a new center-right party” that rejects what she calls “Trumpism.” Rubin only briefly mentions foreign policy in her column’s criticism of Trump, maybe because many self-described conservatives oppose the never-ending foreign intervention Rubin cheers. But, don’t be fooled. Donald Trump’s failure to parrot the uber-interventionist line is a big part of why Rubin and other warmongering “conservatives” oppose him.

Issue two.

In his Friday speech at South by Southwest (SXSW) in Austin, Texas, President Barack Obama suggested libertarians should be more accepting of government because US special forces, as Obama tells it, are “making sure that folks aren’t blowing up our buildings.”

But, the truth is that the US military, including special forces, intervening across the world motivates blowback attacks on Americans. Blowback can include blowing up buildings. Obama could learn this and much more from libertarians.

Issue three.

After the February 13 Republican presidential debate, much hope was expressed that Donald Trump would, as president, pursue a rather noninterventionist foreign policy. The hope arose from Trump’s answer that the Iraq War was “a big fat mistake” supported by former president George W. Bush’s lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump declared the US has “destabilized the Middle East” and “should have never been in Iraq.”

Then, in the March 10 debate, Trump crushed much of that hope. Asked if more US troops should be deployed to fight the Islamic State (ISIS), Trump said the US has “no choice” but “to knock out ISIS.” Continuing, Trump called for large-scale military action including sending, he estimates, 20,000 to 30,000 troops.

Are you feeling déjà vu? Remember presidential candidate Barack Obama criticizing Bush’s wars. Once in office, Obama continued those wars and started new ones.

Issue four.

The Texas Department of Public Safety fired state cop Brian T. Encinia on March 2. Encinia gained notoriety after, on July 10, he physically abused and arrested Sandra Bland, whose car he had pulled over for changing lanes without using a turn signal.

Contributing to the decision to fire Encinia were both his improper actions toward Bland and a grand jury’s indictment of him for perjury related to his description of his interaction with Bland. Many people think a perjury charge and even conviction are insufficient to bring justice. Still, as I highlighted in a December Ron Paul Institute blog post, indicting cops for perjury may provide a relatively sure way to take bad cops off the beat.

Issue five.

Some people are complaining that Donald Trump’s campaign is violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution or similar state constitution provisions when the campaign removes protestors from Trump’s campaign speeches. The complaint may have merit if Trump just wandered into some public park and started talking. There he would have no grounds to prevent protesting. Everyone could speak freely, and over, each other.

But, that is not the situation. Trump’s campaign rents venues for presenting the candidate’s speeches. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger explains in a Tuesday editorial, the First Amendment only restricts government action — not private action — and “under principles of private property” Trump is free to run his rallies the way he wants, including by barring and kicking out “opponents, protesters, disrupters, and even the press” if he so chooses. Indeed, private property is regularly used to facilitate speech, including by ensuring a cacophony does not drown out a speaker’s voice.

-----

That’s a wrap.

A transcript of this episode, including links to related information, is at the Ron Paul Institute blog.

Five four three two one.
Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
What are you supporting?
When you join the
Ron Paul Institute
for Peace and Prosperity
You are supporting

News and analysis
like you'll get nowhere else

Brave insight on
foreign policy and civil liberties

A young writer's program
and much more!