|Peace and Prosperity|
|CIA 'Whistleblower' Assisted By James Clapper Associate|
|Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:09:35 GMT|
A CIA officer who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden, flipped out when he found out Trump wanted Biden investigated, and submitted an embellished whistleblower complaint with the help of Democratic operative attorneys was assisted by former Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, Charles McCullough - who worked for President Obama's Director of National Intelligence and current CNN talking head, James Clapper.
McCullough, is a partnered attorney at Compass Rose Legal Group, and assisted Andrew Bakaj, a former staffer of both Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. -Gregg JarrettAccording to reporting by The Federalist and retweeted by President Trump via Gregg Jarrett: "McCullough, is a partnered attorney at Compass Rose Legal Group, and assisted Andrew Bakaj, a former staffer of both Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton."
The Federalist reached out to Mr. McCullough for comment on his work with the 'whistleblowers' to which he replied, 'I am not part of the whistleblower legal team. I assisted with process issues [for] Andrew at the very beginning, and then withdrew.' Still, it is extremely hard to trust the account of the 'whistleblowers' with their connections to so many people who hate President Trump. In addition, it has been reported that the initial 'whistleblower' is directly associated with Joe Biden. -Gregg Jarrett.
Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge.
|Libertarians for the Drug War?|
|Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:02:18 GMT|
Kyle Jaeger, in a Marijuana Moment article last week discussing answers to a drug war question from a March Cato Institute poll, suggests that a substantial percentage of libertarians, even higher than among liberals, support continuing the drug war. Yet, when you look at the poll question at issue, a much different alternative interpretation becomes evident.
Here is how Jaeger presents his analysis of self-identified libertarians’ answer to the poll question:
Interestingly, people who self-identify as libertarian were ten percentage points less likely to support decriminalization (59 percent) than Democrats, despite the hands-off policy fitting squarely within a libertarian ideology. Those most aligned with Cato Institute’s libertarian perspective are even less embracive of lifting criminal penalties for drug offenses than are respondents who identified themselves as very liberal, with 75 percent of that group in favor.Here is the drug war poll question (question number 45 in the poll):
Would you favor or oppose re-categorizing drug offenses from felonies to civil offenses, meaning they would be treated like minor traffic violations rather than crimes?Libertarians support eliminating prohibition — adopting a truly hands-off policy. In contrast, the poll question’ proposal that Jaeger calls supportive of a “hands-off policy fitting squarely within a libertarian ideology” calls for treating drug offenses as “civil offenses, meaning they would be treated like minor traffic violations.”
Presented in a poll with this drug war roll back option that falls far short of the libertarian approach, many libertarians would react negatively. “I don’t want to just moderate prohibition,” many would think, “I want to end prohibition.”
It does not follow that self-identified libertarians responding negatively to the poll question, as Jaeger wrote, do not support “lifting criminal penalties for drug offenses.” Instead, they likely responded negatively because they think the question’s proposed legal change that keeps prohibition in place does not go far enough.
|How About Donald Trump Hires Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, and Daniel McAdams?|
|Mon, 07 Oct 2019 04:48:11 GMT|
In a Sunday Target Liberty editorial, Robert Wenzel provides some advice for President Donald Trump, who Wenzel relates has decided to “surround himself with warmongers” in executive department positions despite Trump seeming to want to move foreign policy in a different direction. Trump would have been wise, writes Wenzel, to choose different people for Trump administration personnel, including hiring Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams for important foreign policy-related positions.
I consider Trump to be a savvy New York City street hustler, maybe the best ever, but the skill is not transferring well to the White House.Read Wenzel’s complete editorial here.
|“So You Write Propaganda, Right?”: Journalist Files Complaint Against Customs and Border Protection|
|Sat, 05 Oct 2019 22:21:18 GMT|
There has been a disturbing trend of complaints from journalists who allege that they were harassed entering the country by CBP officers about their coverage of President Donald Trump and related issues. The latest complaint is particularly egregious if true. Journalist Ben Wilson says that he was forced to admit that he “writes propaganda” to gain entry back into the country. The encounter, which is presumably on tape, is chilling in its lack of professionalism and abuse.
Watson was going through routine entry when the officer allegedly asked what he does and, when he said he was a journalist, he asked “So you write propaganda, right?”
Watson answered “no” but the officer would not approve entry and kept asking the same question over and over. Finally, Watson decided that he could not leave his wife waiting any longer and said “For the purposes of expediting this conversation, yes.”
You can read about the encounter here.
Many of us have been highly critical of President Trump for his attacks on the media, including calling them the “enemy of the people.” In addition, CBP officers have voiced their frustration with coverage of the border, which often portrays them in a highly negative light.
This is an extremely serious matter and CBP needs to be transparent about the status of this investigation.
Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.
|David Stockman: Trump Impeachment Effort is a ‘Clown Show’ that Can Give Elizabeth Warren the Democratic Nomination|
|Thu, 03 Oct 2019 19:18:13 GMT|
|Interviewed this week at Cheddar, author and former United States House of Representatives Member David Stockman called the effort to impeach President Donald Trump a “clown show.” Further, argues Stockman, this clown show can result in Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.|
“Why are we weaponizing the normal procedures of government?” asks Stockman in the interview. Continuing, Stockman explains:
The Democrats are basically saying that any president in his third or fourth year of his first term that wants to seek reelection is inherently suspect for any policy action he undertakes if somehow it can be construed to be beneficial to his reelection. On that basis, every president who went for a second term in the last fifty years should have been impeached.Stockman further opines that, while Trump “will be badly bloodied” by the impeachment effort, the countereffort by Trump and Republicans will “take [former Vice President Joe Biden] down” given that Biden and Biden’s son “are so deeply implicated in the corruption and the muck in Ukraine in 2016,” a matter of focus in the impeachment effort against Trump. With Biden knocked out of contention for the Democratic presidential nomination, Stockman predicts, Warren will become the Democratic presidential nominee.
Watch Stockman’s complete interview, in which he also discusses the Federal Reserve and the American economy, here:
Stockman is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute.
|The Right to Possess Iced Tea, Bug Spray, and Razor Blades|
|Wed, 02 Oct 2019 22:54:18 GMT|
In August of 2018, John Miska was arrested in Charlottesville, Virginia for engaging in civil disobedience. In particular, Miska had bought bug spray, a razor blade, and cans of iced tea in defiance of the city government’s imposing of restrictions on possessing such common items. The purported reason for the restrictions was that a year earlier there was violence between protesting groups in the city.
The next month, there was good news for Miska and liberty — a local trial court dismissed the prosecution of Miska.
On Wednesday, the Rutherford Institute, which had defended Miska in his criminal prosecution and represented him in a lawsuit against the city, provided more good news. Charlottesville has agreed to settle Miska’s lawsuit against the city on terms that include Charlottesville officials agreeing “to change the law to only prohibit ordinary items, such as bottles and metal cans, from being used as weapons at a demonstration,” instead of the city maintaining the power to ban possessing them.
|CIA Coup? US IC's Fingerprints All Over Trump Impeachment Op & JFK Assassination – RPI Director|
|Wed, 02 Oct 2019 18:39:59 GMT|
Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams, believes that the handling of the whistleblower's complaint appears to be fishy. He presumes that the intelligence community and deep state's interests are at play.
Sputnik: What's your take on Dr Paul's assumption of a possible "CIA coup" against Donald Trump? How did it happen that the US Intelligence Community (IC) decided to go after the elected president of the US?
Daniel McAdams: It’s not that unusual for the US intelligence community – an integral part of the “deep state” – to “go after” an elected president. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the CIA had its fingers deep into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If you look at all of the figures around the early stages of “Russiagate” and the larger attempt to deny Donald Trump the office to which he was elected, you will find current and “former” members of the US intelligence apparatus at every turn. Former CIA Director John Brennan has been extremely active both above and below ground trying to undermine the legitimacy of the US president, falsely accusing him of being a traitor for meeting with Russian president Putin. Other members of the US intelligence community like former acting director Mike Morell and former FBI Director Comey have also been active in trying to undermine and remove President Trump.
Sputnik: On 27 September, The Federalist broke that the US intelligence community secretly nixed the requirement of first-hand whistleblower knowledge in a “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form. In response, the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) released a statement Monday insisting that the requirements had not undergone any changes. It further noted that although the whistleblower in question had not possessed first-hand knowledge about most of the events happened, "the ICIG did not find that the complainant could 'provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions." Was The Federalist completely wrong to raise the alarm? Was the ICIG's decision to regard the complaint as "credible" justified, in your opinion (especially given that the whistleblower presented a distorted narrative of the Trump-Zelensky call)?
Daniel McAdams: There are plenty of problems with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s statement. Frankly it makes no sense at all. On one hand it says that the “whistleblower” was handed the proper form explaining the rules, which included the requirement that the information be first-hand. But then in his statement today he contradicts himself, saying that it was no such requirement. Even though it’s right there in his statement! He said that it was possible that some could read the form incorrectly and conclude that first-hand information was required so the form was changed to read that hearsay and second-hand information was also acceptable. Then he claimed the forms were not changed. Something fishy is going on and the IGIC’s statement does not clear the water but makes it far more murky.
Sputnik: What do you think about the timing of the impeachment operation spearheaded by the Dems? Is it mere coincidence that it was kicked off amid AG William Barr/John Durham's probe into the FBI/CIA/DOJ's handling of the 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia and IG Michael Horowitz's inquiry into the supposed FISA abuse by FBI/DOJ?
Daniel McAdams: The timing of the impeachment operation is not necessarily tied to Horowitz’s inquiry. In fact there is every reason, based on his past practice, that Horowitz will give a “pass” to wrongdoing as he did with Hillary and Comey. This is just “Russiagate” 2.0. The Democrats and their allies in the deep state are determined to overturn the will of the American people and remove an elected president for phoney charges. This is the real lesson of decades of US deep state-led regime change operations overseas: sooner or later when those with power decide that the American people have chosen the “wrong” person they will spring into action. President Trump, for better or worse, is just not one of “them” so they are determined to get rid of him. Sadly, America is looking more and more like a banana republic.
Excerpt reprinted from SputnikNews.
|A Case of Police Brutality: Will Justice Be Served?|
|Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:35:02 GMT|
On August 14, 2017 St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officer Adam Feaman used excessive deadly physical force against Jamal White as White emerged from his apartment to determine why the police were towing his car. White was eventually arrested for peace disturbance and resisting arrest-both misdemeanors.
It is unclear on what charges Feaman originally intended to arrest White but it is clear White posed no threat to Feaman as he first ran and then walked away. The first thing Feaman thought to do when beginning his pursuit of Smith was to retrieve his flashlight from his back pocket. Feaman first struck White in the jaw with a flashlight-breaking his jaw which had to be wired shut for more than two months. According to White’s attorney White’s ear had to be sewn back on. Feaman again struck White on the back of his head with his flashlight while White was on the ground even though White was complying with Feaman’s order to get on the ground.
Much of the encounter was captured on cell phone video. This video clearly depicts the incident in context. It wasn’t until one year later that Feaman was charged with second-degree assault and armed criminal action. You can read Jamal White’s lawsuit here.
If a non-police officer struck someone, who posed no threat to them, on the jaw and head with a flashlight and the cell phone video was available (as it was in this case) you can bet that that individual would be arrested immediately and would have a good view of a cell block for some time. Alas, the offender in this case is a police officer. And so the process of charging and arresting Feaman took more than a year. The wheels of justice move ever so slowly when the accused is a government employed police officer. We see it all the time. This case is no exception.
Will justice be served in this case? I’m not much of an optimist when it comes to our criminal justice system-especially in cases of police brutality. But we can only rein in police brutality by convicting those brutal officers who have tarnished an entire profession. In this case there were other officers on the scene who saw no need to brandish weapons or use deadly force against an unarmed man posing no threat to anyone. But those cops must be held accountable for their actions. The other officers present did not try to stop Feaman and did not report him to their superiors. Although this will never happen-they should have arrested Feaman.
It is only when the police are held to this standard that we will see true justice and remove systemic police brutality from the criminal justice system. Am I optimistic that this will occur? Unfortunately I am not. As an expert in criminal investigation and police policy and procedures I am well aware of the enormity of the problem we are facing. And I don’t see anything changing in the near future.
Baeza is a retired NYPD Detective.
|Libertarian Party Chairman Admits He Is Not a Libertarian|
|Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:37:46 GMT|
United States Libertarian Party Chairman Nicholas Sarwark, as part of an effort to put in a good light the election results of the 2016 Libertarian presidential ticket, declared in a September 10 The Soho Forum debate that libertarians in America are exclusively the people registered as affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Then, on Tuesday, Sarwark wrote at Twitter that the Secretary of State of New Hampshire, where Sarwark moved last month, “does not recognize the Libertarian Party.” Sarwark further wrote: “Our city clerk whited out ‘Libertarian’ on my voter registration form and replaced it with ‘unenrolled.’”
Applying Sarwark’s own warped definition of a libertarian, Sarwark is not a libertarian.
|Jacob Hornberger’s New Podcast|
|Tue, 24 Sep 2019 19:51:34 GMT|
|Jacob Hornberger released on Tuesday the first episode of his new podcast LibertyView. The show promises to be interesting and informative given Hornberger’s long history as an effective communicator of libertarian ideas.|
In the first episode, Hornberger, who is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, discusses how successive United States presidents “exercising totalitarian-like powers” in the name of confronting “emergencies and crises” provides “warning signals” that America is moving toward “the destruction of liberty.”
Listen to the first episode of Hornberger’s LibertyView here:
Finding time to listen to LibertyView episodes should not be very difficult. Hornberger wrote in his announcement of the podcast that he is planning for episodes to run just about two minutes each.
|600,000 Libertarians in America?|
|Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:42:47 GMT|
In a September 10 The Soho Forum debate, United States Libertarian Party Chairman Nicholas Sarwark declared the number of libertarians in America is “roughly 600,000” because that many people are registered as affiliated with the Libertarian Party in America. Sarwark then used this declaration of the number of libertarians in America as the basis for concluding that the party’s 2016 presidential ticket received several times the number of votes as there are libertarians in America.
Declaring that the registered Libertarians in America are synonymous with the libertarians in America is absurd.
A June 28 post at the Libertarian Party’s website makes this claim: “Thirty states plus the District of Columbia register their voters by party affiliation.” That would mean that people living in two-fifths of states do not have the option of registering as affiliated with the Libertarian Party. So, under Sarwark’s calculation, while there are hundreds of thousands of libertarians in states that allow people to register as Libertarian, there are a total of zero libertarians in the many other states that do not allow such registration.
Believing libertarians in America are exclusively composed of all the people registered Libertarian would even mean believing that in December the number of libertarians in Maine dropped from several thousand to none in one day, all because of an action by one politician. As reported by Richard Winger at Ballot Access News, “[o]n December 14, the Maine Secretary of State converted all 5,500 registered Libertarians to registered independents.”
Also, where people can register as Libertarian, plenty of libertarians will register independent. Other libertarians, for reasons including wanting to have the capability to vote in a major party’s primary, will register as Republican or Democrat. Plenty other libertarians will not even register to vote.
And not every person who registers Libertarian is a libertarian. People register Libertarian for many reasons other than that they are libertarians. Reasons include to make a joke, to send a message of dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic parties, or as a step toward seeking to utilize as a candidate the party’s ballot access. Some people even register Libertarian as a step in seeking to infiltrate and sabotage the Libertarian Party.
Further, plenty of people who register Libertarian view the party as not being devoted to supporting libertarianism. These registered Libertarians understand “Libertarian” as just the party’s name, not a true representation the party and its candidates’ philosophy.
|Andrew Napolitano Warns of Privacy Threat from Government Cameras and Facial Recognition|
|Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:29:08 GMT|
|In a Wednesday Fox News video commentary, former New Jersey state Judge Andrew Napolitano describes the great privacy invasion capability of government entities in Great Britain using many cameras along with facial recognition software and databases of personal information. Further, notes Napolitano, the use of facial recognition by police for surveillance has already been approved in court in Britain. “The people in Great Britain have lost their right to be left alone,” asserts Napolitano.|
“Tough for the British,” some Americans may say, “but there are privacy protections that will prevent that from happening in America.” However, Napolitano, who is the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, explains that “sadly” the same thing “has begun to happen here” in America. Napolitano points to facial recognition software being acquired by police in New York City, Chicago, and Orlando, as well as in “smaller police departments around the United States.”
If police start using facial recognition in America like police have in Britain, concludes Napolitano, Americans “will lose all privacy like our friends in Great Britain have already.”
Watch Napolitano’s video commentary here:
Read here Napolitano’s new editorial in which he discusses this privacy danger in more detail.
Napolitano is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute.
|Lawrence Wilkerson ‘I’d Bet on’ President Trump Choosing Douglas Macgregor as National Security Advisor after a Job Interview|
|Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:10:14 GMT|
|Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and the chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in President George W. Bush’s administration, places good odds on President Donald Trump choosing Douglas Macgregor, also a former Army colonel, for the national security advisor position recently held by John Bolton.|
Wilkerson, in a new interview with host Aaron Maté at Push Back, puts the odds of Trump choosing Macgregor, who tends to recommend non-interventionist foreign policy actions much like those supported at times by Trump, at “50/50.” But, says Wilkerson, “if there is a personal interview, Trump talking to Doug and Doug to Trump, I’d raise that to 70/30, and I’d bet on it.”
Explaining his conclusion, Wilkerson states Macgregor is “very persuasive” and points to a speech Macgregor presented at an August 24 Ron Paul Institute conference near Washington, DC. Anyone who saw Macgregor’s speech at the conference, says Wilkerson, would understand why it looks like Macgregor would be a good replacement for Bolton.
You can watch that speech by Macgregor at the Ron Paul Institute conference here:
Watch Wilkerson’s complete interview here, in which Wilkerson also criticizes Bolton’s record as national security advisor:
Wilkerson is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute.
|Walter Block: Vaping Products Bans are Fascist Paternalistic Idiocy|
|Fri, 13 Sep 2019 20:30:51 GMT|
|Loyola University Economics Professor Walter Block did not hold back in responding to the Trump administration’s plan to ban flavored e-cigarettes, as well as efforts by local and state governments to impose various types of vaping-related bans. Interviewed Wednesday at RT by host Rick Sanchez, Block derided banning vaping products as “fascist,” as well as “idiocy,” “moronical behavior,” and “utter nonsense.” Like other prohibitions of adults engaging in nonviolent activities, Block categorizes prohibitions on vaping as improper paternalist actions by government.|
Block, in the interview, begins his analysis of the matter stating:
What’s going on here is — I don’t know — idiocy, moronical behavior. It’s just utter nonsense, or they say, nonsense on stilts. I think you’re quite right that, if we have to ban anything, we should ban cigarettes based on saving lives. But, if we learned anything from alcohol prohibition, we shouldn’t ban anything for adults. Now, for kids, it’s different. I mean, paternalism is OK for kids, but not for adults.Addressing the matter further, Block argues that laws restricting or prohibiting vaping, and other paternalistic laws, are examples of fascism “in the sense that its government cooperation with corporate capitalism — corporate monopoly capitalism, which all free enterprise [supporters] would oppose.” Discussing vaping prohibitions in particular, Block, who is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute, notes that, while people say the prohibitions are “just to protect the public,” “really what’s going on, as the public choice school and Austrian school of economics tells us, is this is a restriction on entry.” “They don’t want to compete or they can’t compete so they go to the government and say, ‘Hey, get rid of vaping,” continues Block, referring to the motivation for tobacco companies to support vaping prohibitions.
Considering potential threats to people’s health, Block calls vaping prohibitions “utterly ridiculous.” Argues Bock, “the vapers could say ‘Well, let’s get rid of cigarettes,’ and they would have a lot more sense on their side.”
Indeed, Jacob Sullum succinctly presents the health danger posed by vaping prohibitions, and by the prohibition planned by the Trump administration in particular, in a Thursday Reason article, writing:
By banning the kinds of e-cigarettes and e-liquid overwhelmingly preferred by adults who used to smoke, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will drive many of them back to a far more hazardous source of nicotine. The same sort of harm-maximizing substitution is apt to occur among teenagers, who may respond to the ban by switching from vaping to smoking. If so, the fear that vaping is a gateway to smoking will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.Watch Block’s complete interview here:
|Marijuana Industry Associations: We Want the US Government to Regulate Marijuana|
|Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:26:53 GMT|
Last month the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), who many people would expect to support the United States government butting out of marijuana matters, was urging the US government to tightly regulate the marijuana market. On Wednesday, two major marijuana industry associations joined in, urging the US government to impose regulations on marijuana businesses.
National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Executive Director Aaron Smith lamented in a statement released Wednesday by NCIA that US laws “prevent federal regulatory agencies from establishing safety guidelines” and called on the US Congress to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and “sensibly regulate [marijuana] in a manner similar to alcohol and other consumables.” The Cannabis Trade Federation (CTF) also released a statement Wednesday calling for the US government to regulate marijuana. The CFT one-ups the NCIA in expressing adoration of such potential regulation, declaring in its statement:
The Cannabis Trade Federation supports strict regulation of the cannabis industry at both the state and federal level. Consumers and communities will benefit when all cannabis products are subject to rigorous production, safety, and testing standards at the federal level. We urge Congress to act now so that the federal government can serve its proper role in regulating cannabis as a consumer product.What we are seeing here is apparently a preemptive effort at regulatory capture by big marijuana businesses before marijuana is legalized countrywide. In regulatory capture, regulations and enforcement actions that are supposedly undertaken to protect the public from dangers emanating from businesses are instead designed and directed in the interest of protecting certain businesses, whether from competition, from tort actions, or from other potential impediments.
Indeed, NCIA and CTF both in their statements extend an offer to help the US government set up regulations of the marijuana industry. The NCIA statement declares: “We stand ready to work with Congress and federal regulators on the long-term solution to this problem, which is replacing prohibition with sound regulations.” Similarly, the CTF statement declares: “Our industry seeks to be an active partner with the government in addressing this issue [(possible health dangers related to some vaping products)] and any others that may arise in the future.”
Unfortunately, political maneuvering often offers American businesses one of their best returns on investment. This could be true for businesses dealing with marijuana as it has been for many businesses dealing with other products and services. Watch out taxpayers and upstart marijuana business competitors: Big marijuana is on the march, and it is asking the US government to take it by the hand.
|'National Security Without Constant Conflict' - Col. Douglas Macgregor|
|Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:12:41 GMT|
|Due to the increased interest in the National Security Advisor position with the departure of John Bolton, the Ron Paul Institute will begin publishing speeches from its 2019 Washington Conference out of order. We will feature first a brilliant presentation from Col. Douglas Macgregor on what President Trump needs to do to recover his agenda from those like Bolton who have derailed Trump's campaign promises. In just 27 minutes, Col. Macgregor lays out a succinct plan to rein in our out-of-control interventionism while keeping this country secure:|
|Douglas Macgregor for National Security Advisor?|
|Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:52:21 GMT|
|President Donald Trump announced Tuesday morning at Twitter that John Bolton is no longer his national security advisor. Who might replace Bolton in this position the holders of which have a history of playing a significant role in shaping United States foreign policy? On July 23, Steven Nelson wrote at the Washington Examiner that insiders said retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor was being considered as a potential replacement for Bolton.|
Macgregor would provide a big change after Bolton. On August 24 at the Ron Paul Institute (RPI) conference “Breaking Washington’s Addiction to War,” Macgregor presented a speech advising actions President Donald Trump should take in the remainder of his first term. In the speech titled “National Security Without Constant Conflict,” Macgregor described a path forward largely focused on decreasing US intervention overseas — quite a change from the uber-interventionism promoted by Bolton.
You can watch here Macgregor’s speech “President Trump’s New Pax Americana” from RPI’s 2018 “Media & War” conference:
|State Republican Parties: Who Needs Primaries? Trump is Our Man.|
|Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:18:47 GMT|
Many states have for decades imposed difficult to virtually impossible hurdles that third parties must jump over for their candidates to appear on general election ballots. But, it is not only Libertarian, Green, and other third-party candidates who can be denied their places on election ballots. Alex Isenstadt reported Friday at Politico that the state Republican parties of Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina were “poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to Donald Trump’s long-shot primary challengers.”
Affected would be any candidates challenging President Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. Included are some candidates who have won high-level elected offices as Republicans — former South Carolina Governor and United States House of Representatives Member Mark Sanford, former US House Member from Illinois Joe Walsh, and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld.
Some people will be quick to blame Trump’s presidency for bringing about this new “undemocratic” turn of events. Yet, Isenstadt relates in his article that there have been a number of prior instances of state parties — both Republican and Democratic — cancelling presidential primaries and caucuses in years when the parties had incumbents seeking reelection.
Still, Trump does appear to think state Republican parties cancelling their 2020 presidential primaries and caucuses is A-OK, defending the propriety of such action when asked about it on Monday.
|National Review Writer: Let’s Make Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Confiscation Legislation More Oppressive|
|Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:30:42 GMT|
The Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (S 506) is legislation proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in the United States Senate. The bill seeks to subsidize the operation of state red flag law programs in which, via ex parte and low-proof-threshold determinations, people are denied the legal ability to possess guns and subjected to gun confiscation.
Feinstein’s bill, however, does not go far enough: It should be amended to also subsidize ensuring some of those people so deprived of the ability to legally possess guns are also thrown into involuntary mental treatment. That is the recommendation of D.J. Jaffe in a Friday National Review editorial.
How should states pursue such an expanded red flag law program? Jaffe writes: “New York provides a roadmap for how to do this.” In particular, he points to the state’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE} Act. That law charges health care workers with reporting names of people they think are likely do something that could result in serious harm to themselves or others. The names are then fed to the state government that can pursue the revocation of the reported people’s legal ability to possess guns.
While Jaffe attempts to present the New York law as reasonable and just, as I explained in a 2014 article, the law created a situation, including the flagging of tens of thousands of individuals as candidates for gun confiscation, that was neither reasonable nor just. Summing up the situation within the first two years of the SAFE Act’s enforcement, I wrote, “In the implementation of the mental health law provision of the SAFE Act we see the liberty-suppressing potential of a mandated ‘if you see something say something’ program combined with a government database and a routine bureaucratic process.”
For a disturbing account of the harm the Kafkaesque SAFE Act process has imposed on one of the many harmed individuals, read Rod Watson’s April of 2019 Buffalo News article that details the ordeal of Lois Reid. Reid was able, after a five-year effort, to recover her ability to legally possess a gun — something she had been deprived of after a hospital visit.
|San Francisco Targets the NRA with Anti-BDS-Style Resolution|
|Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:21:25 GMT|
Condemning and even barring people who support, or refuse to oppose, boycotting, divesting from, or sanctioning Israel from being employees or contractors of state or local government entities has been the rage in American state legislatures over the last few years. Kentucky has become one of the latest states to impose one of these anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) laws, with Governor Matt Blevin having signed such legislation last week.
On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that calls for treating people and businesses who have interacted financially with the National Rifle Association (NRA) much as states with anti-BDS laws treat people with particular ideas related to Israel. The resolution terms the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and declares that “the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization” and “should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization.”
The anti-NRA resolution in San Francisco is similar to the anti-BDS legislation in many states in that it seeks to punish people for their views on contentious issues.
In another way the two laws are nearly opposite. The states’ anti-BDS laws target for punishment refusing to engage in, or supporting the termination of, some acts of commerce. In contrast, San Francisco’s anti-NRA resolution targets for punishment engaging in commerce. In short, the San Francisco resolution is pushing for a boycott of and divestment from the NRA.
Many people and businesses who have no opinion in regard to the NRA’s goals, or even disagree with the organization’s goals, but have done business in some manner with the NRA could be affected by San Francisco’s new resolution. It is not just an individual or company that has paid a membership fee or made a financial contribution to the NRA who is affected. The net extends much wider, set to entangle many more people and businesses, including, for example, any hotel where the NRA held a meeting, any company that has provided internet communication services to the NRA, and any company that has printed NRA material. The resolution could even apply to a plumber who repairs a leaking sink in the bathroom of an NRA office or a cleaning company that mops floors and takes out trash from an NRA office along with other offices in a building. The scope is vast.
Yet, while San Francisco’s resolution calls for imposing punishment on many people and companies, it appears to rest on a faulty foundation. Michael Tennant, over at The New American, pokes holes in some of the shoddy arguments used in the resolution to support terming the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and taking action against people and businesses that have had a financial or contractual interaction with the NRA.