Check out the originators of the Liberty Tree and friend of liberty

Jack Hunter

Posted on October 26, 2021

Why does Rand Paul have to do reporters' job for them?

Yahoo News reported on Thursday (emphasis added), “A top NIH official admitted in a Wednesday letter that U.S. taxpayers funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan and revealed that EcoHealth Alliance, the U.S. non-profit that funneled NIH money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was not transparent about the work it was doing...

The revelation vindicates Republican senator Rand Paul, who got into heated exchanges with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease director Anthony Fauci during his May and July testimonials before Congress over the gain-of-function question. At the second hearing, Paul accused Fauci of misleading Congress by denying that the U.S. had funded gain-of-function projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

We now know about this funding because an NIH official admitted it.

But when the Paul and Fauci exchange originally happened, how many reporters thought it wise to investigate and see if there was any validity to Paul's claims?

How many "journalists" instead reflexively mocked Paul and defended Fauci?

The media today see its job as promoting and protecting the Biden administration, not challenging it.

Americans should know if their tax dollars went toward funding gain-of-function research in a Chinese lab and the potential implications of that research regarding the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Americans do know thanks to the efforts of Rand Paul, who, as a U.S. senator, did the investigating and reporting that no journalist thought important to do.

Posted on September 29, 2021

Can the Americans with Disabilities Act be used for mask mandates?

Last week, a federal judge enforced a universal mask mandate for public schools in Knox County, Tennessee. The judge used the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act as his legal basis for action…

The ADA has long been understood to mean that facilities should accommodate those with disabilities. This has meant providing services such as wheelchair ramps, remodeled bathrooms, captioning, and other physical modifications or service offerings.

But does the ADA now also regulate widespread public behavior?

Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs had the same question (disclosure: Jacobs is a personal friend). Referencing the judge's ruling, Jacobs tweeted on Wednesday. "My long-term concern is this order appears to expand ADA so that it not only includes facilities and services, but also forcibly regulates 3rd party behavior."

"And it's not just schools," Jacobs wrote . "In his order, the judge states identical grievances could be filed against other public buildings such as libraries and post offices."

Read the entire column at the Washington Examiner.

Posted on September 9, 2021

That time Liz Cheney sided with Trump to take down Thomas Massie

Yahoo News reported Thursday, "Former President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will support a Wyoming attorney’s bid to unseat GOP Rep. Liz Cheney."

"In a statement, Trump endorsed Harriet Hageman, who stepped down from her role representing Wyoming on the Republican National Committee in advance of the announcement."

Some who disagree Trump's fraudulent 2020 election claims do not like that the former president actively works against Cheney now, who has criticized Trump for those claims.

Whatever you think of Trump trying to take down an adversary within his own party for whatever reason, we know Liz Cheney has zero problem trying to take down adversaries within her own party for any reason.

Just ask Rep. Thomas Massie.

In April 2020 Rep. Thomas Massie enraged all of Washington when he attempted to force a roll-call vote on the massive $2 trillion coronavirus relief package.

I wrote at the Washington Examiner at the time, "The libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican’s move would have required members of Congress, including those who are elderly and among the most threatened by the novel coronavirus, to return to Washington. Massie was attacked and called a 'Grandstander,' 'Un-American,' and even a 'Masshole' by many high-ranking officials."

President Trump called for Massie to be thrown out of the GOP. So did Liz Cheney, who immediately backed Massie's primary challenger (yet later withdrew her support).

Never mind that Massie was proven right about the spending package just three weeks later.

"As many citizens received their stimulus payments this week, many also noticed that aspects of this aid looked rotten," I wrote. "For starters, while mom-and-pop restaurants battled to get their pieces of the $350 billion 'Payback Protection Program,' large chain restaurants got them first .

While small businesses of all types, from salons to bars to auto shops, waited for relief, some hedge funds had applied ahead of them for a loan." I noted. "So many big businesses and others applied that by Thursday, the money ran out."

"Many little guys are still desperately waiting," I finished. "Still, the rich got theirs."

Massie had argued that in Washington's haste to pass that bill, the little guy might get hurt because no one was paying attention to where the money would actually go. It was Massie practicing basic fiscal conservatism.

Does anyone think Cheney cared about that?

No, like her father, Liz Cheney is a thorough neoconservative whose primary reason for being in Washington is make sure the U.S. remains on a permanent war footing. The libertarian-leaning Massie believes we should not be fighting unnecessary wars or engaging in nation building.

When Trump wanted Massie ousted from the Republican Party, Cheney did not hesitate one second to stand alongside Trump and attempt to get rid of Massie using the president's popularity.

Now the dynamics have flip-flopped and Cheney finds herself on the bad side of Trump. Some see Trump trying to take down Cheney as unfair.

When the script was flipped, Cheney used the same tactics against Thomas Massie. Without flinching. It was reflexive. She had an opportunity to stamp out an arch ideological enemy.

'Fair' had nothing to do with it.

Posted on September 7, 2021

How many times has Anthony Fauci lied to Rand Paul?

On Tuesday, "The Intercept that revealed the U.S. government pumped $3.1 million into American health organization EcoHealth Alliance to back bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)' according to Fox News."

When Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked by Sen. Rand Paul in July if the U.S. government had funded the Wuhan lab in question, Fauci balked at the very question. Fauci told Paul he had no idea what he was talking about.

Apparently Paul did now what he was talking about, according to the new The Intercept report.

This is not the first time Fauci has been "untruthful" with Paul based on the available data. Months ago, he was saying that natural immunity didn't exist for those who had contracted COVID-19 and that vaccinated people still needed to wear masks.

In May, I put together a video collection of many of the times Fauci had been less than honest in answering Sen. Paul's questions.

Enjoy!

Posted on August 31, 2021

We should have used Ron Paul's idea to go after al-Qaeda instead of fighting a dumb war

Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul voted for the U.S. to go after the Taliban after 9/11 because that group was harboring al-Qaeda, who had attacked the U.S. After that mission was accomplished fairly quickly, Paul spent the next twenty years wondering why America was still in an unwinnable war with no clear mission in a faraway land.

But Ron Paul also had another idea after 9/11. Titled the "September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," Rep. Paul introduced a bill that would give congressional authority to hire private individuals or entities “to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001.”

It got no traction. Paul was mocked for it. Politico called it "wacky."

You know what's wacky? Spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing so many lives to fight a war that has left the U.S. and Afghanistan worse off than before. What is wacky is trying to punish the Taliban but instead rewarding them with full control of their country again and billions in U.S. weapons to maintain their power.

For 20 years. THAT's wacky.

No, instead we could have sent special forces or private contractors to hunt down specific members of al-Qaeda and brought them to justice for far less money and suffering. As Ron Paul said of the Afghanistan war ending according to The Hill's Eric Brakey, “How could the US war machine and all its allied profiteers make their billions if we didn’t put on a massive war?”

We should have listened to Ron Paul. Just put that last sentence on repeat for most things.

Posted on August 30, 2021

The war in Afghanistan is finally over. What was all that for?

It is a soldier's job to do his or her duty for their country. It is arguably the noblest calling in the world. They don't get to pick the wars. They serve.

It is a citizen's job to question their government. Particularly the wars it chooses to fight. Perhaps we didn't ask enough questions or challenge politicians as forcefully as we should have.

Because what did America actually accomplish in Afghanistan?

For twenty years, the U.S. has fought in that country. Leaders in both parties have told us for two decades we must stay or it would all fall apart and the Taliban would retake control.

Today that war finally ended. The country is falling apart and the Taliban is once again in control.

So what were we there for all that time?

Obviously, the U.S. was justified in going in after 9/11 because the Taliban was harboring the terrorists who attacked us. But we didn't just go in, accomplish the mission and then leave.

We stayed. We nation built. We bore the costs in not only dollars, but far more importantly, lives.

For what? One is tempted to do a cost/benefit analysis, but to do that there would have to be some benefit. There is none.

If we went in to punish the Taliban, we rewarded them on the way out the door with billions in U.S. military equipment.

Why?

By every metric imaginable, we lost the war in Afghanistan long before anyone, including its supporters, could clearly explain what our mission was there.

American soldiers did their duty and we salute their service and sacrifice. But by seemingly not challenging the government enough, I worry that we citizens let them down.

One thing is clear: Any politician who wants to do that again - and Washington is full of hawkish people eager to do so in both parties - is unfit for office. Because they haven't learned a single lesson from what has to be one of America's grandest mistakes.

But we can learn lessons. We must. Doing so might be the only bright spot amongst the darkness left behind.

Posted on August 27, 2021

What the government really means is 'follow the science (unless it conflicts with our narrative)'

For months and months and months, pundits and politicians complained that Sen. Rand Paul would not wear a mask. Paul claimed immunity due to already contracting COVID-19.

NBC News reported in May, "Rand Paul, the only senator known to have contracted COVID-19, defended his decision not to wear a mask on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, citing his 'immunity' to a disease that top scientists are still trying to understand."

"I have immunity. I've already had the virus, so I can't get it again and I can't give it to anybody," Paul said at the time. "I can't get it again, nor can I transmit. So of all the people you'll meet here, I'm about the only safe person in Washington."

Sen. Sherrod Brown tweeted in February:

Paul had argued that the criticisms of him not wearing a mask were political. He believed that most of what we know about viruses, once you get them you have natural immunity. That Dr. Anthony Fauci and other supposed health experts were claiming the opposite ran counter to most of what we know about such illnesses, Paul argued.

On Thursday, Science magazine published a story titled "Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please."

Science reported, "The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a 'Don’t try this at home' label."

"The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19," Science noted.

Science also indicated that those who had COVID-19 and were also vaccinated were likely the most protected against the virus. But the outlet also confirmed what Paul had been insisting throughout: That having COVID-19 gives you natural immunity.

Is Anthony Fauci going to share this data with the public? Is the CDC going to revise its guidelines? Will a single critic of Paul's pandemic behavior now admit he was right about natural immunity? Hell, will any of these people even admit natural immunity is a thing?

No, they won't. Because it is political. Because it's about reinforcing their longstanding narratives, true or false, to maintain their control and authority. Politicians are not known for admitting they were wrong.

In the meantime, the rest of us should follow the science regarding natural immunity even if the government refuses.

Posted on August 23, 2021

Adam Kinzinger is what's wrong with American foreign policy

I would like to thank Rep. Adam Kinzinger for his service. This is about the only kind thing I can say about the Republican congressman as it relates to American foreign policy.

U.S. foreign policy has been a disaster for the last twenty years due to people who think like him. Kinzinger spent the weekend whining on social media about anyone who ever tried to end America's longest war in Afghanistan, tweeting:

While the Biden administration withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan in the worst possible way, the notion of having American soldiers another week in a country where they cannot or will not defend themselves after all this time is an insult to our military.

Kinzinger is being cute with his comments about "forever war" in his tweet, but it is what politicians of his ilk truly want: The U.S. to be on a permanent war footing indefinitely.

It was neoconservative Republicans during the George W. Bush administration that got America into this prolonged mess and Kinzinger's intent is to carry on that disastrous foreign policy legacy.

When President Trump announced that the U.S. would finally be leaving Iraq in the near future, neoconservative Republicans like Kinzinger and Liz Cheney teamed up with Democrats to try to stop a withdrawal.

CATO's Doug Bandow touched on those efforts in July 2020, writing, "Republicans also are taking the lead in the Democratic‐ controlled House to sacrifice American interests for foreign governments. For instance, Rep. Liz Cheney...backed a Democratic proposal to limit further withdrawals from Afghanistan, where Americans have been engaged in a nearly 20‐ year nation‐ building mission."

"The measure passed by a 45 to 11 vote: members of both countries seem determined to keep Americans forever fighting in Central Asia," Bandow noted. "They care more for the corrupt, incompetent regime in Kabul than America service members and taxpayers. In contrast, the president, despite his halting, inconsistent policy, better represents this nation’s interests."

Bandow added, "For instance, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R‐ Ill) complained that Trump’s refusal to keep the U.S. forever entangled in another nation’s civil war, tragic but irrelevant to American security, was 'weak.”

That line could have came straight from Dick Cheney's lips. Former President Donald Trump's aversion to war has always been at the heart of Kinzinger's deranged Never Trumpism.

For years, an overwhelming majority of Americans have supported withdrawal from Afghanistan, as Kinzinger now tries to use Biden's poor strategy to argue the U.S. should have never left. Again, he quite literally wants forever wars.

If it is a soldier's job to do his or her duty, it is our job as citizens to question our government when it chooses to go to war. Kinzinger finds it reprehensible that any American would ever question a war or want to end one. The mere inquiry sends the congressman into conniptions.

For all his moralizing and posturing, Adam Kinzinger is part of the outdated and discredited Washington foreign policy consensus that kept the U.S. in Afghanistan for so long in the first place. He will never admit it, he will never learn a single lesson from our foreign policy mistakes, and her will gladly repeat those mistakes with any willing presidents or parties in the future.

Adam Kinzinger is part of what's been wrong with U.S. foreign policy for many years.

Too many.

Posted on August 19, 2021

Our enemies on 9/11 were al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Now both have our weapons

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace commented on Fox News Thursday about the U.S. weapons that have now ended up in Taliban hands after American troop withdrawal.

"Perhaps we should have taken some of that equipment," Mace said during an interview. "Perhaps we should have demolished some of that equipment so that it did not get into the hands of terrorists."

"So they should not be using our arms and munitions, but this is what happens, and this happened with the United States previously - we have not learned these lessons."

No, we have not learned. Let's focus on one word Mace said: "previously."

Because that is key.

Sen. Rand Paul wrote about U.S. weapons ending up in enemy hands in 2019, "Iran, to this day, the military still has some U.S. weapons left over from weapons the U.S. supplied to the shah. In Iraq, some of the weapons we gave the country to fight Iran were still there when we returned to fight Saddam Hussein. In Afghanistan, some of the weapons we gave the mujahedeen to fight the Russians were still there when we returned to fight the Taliban."

"Proliferating arms in the midst of chaos is a recipe for disaster," Paul observed.

Though the details of the situations vary, in the recent past U.S. weapons that have been sold to Saudi Arabia or given to insurgents in Syria have wound up in enemy hands, including al-Qaeda and similar groups.

A 2015 Reuters report noted, and I could cite many reports of the same thing happening but consider this a typical example: "Syrian rebels trained by the United States gave some of their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage, a U.S. military spokesman said on Friday, the latest blow to a troubled U.S. effort to train local partners to fight Islamic State militants."

"The rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and some ammunition, or about one-quarter of their issued equipment," the report noted.

So... the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on 9/11. America's explicit military goal was to route the Taliban and stomp out al-Qaeda.

Yet an unavoidable result of twenty years of war is that the U.S. has since armed al-Qaeda inadvertently and now arms the Taliban, however accidentally.

What was the point of the war again?

Posted on August 18, 2021

Nancy Mace blames 'bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment' for Afghanistan disaster

Freshmen Congresswoman Nancy Mace represents my hometown, South Carolina's District 1.

Nancy is not only a fresh new face for the Republican Party but is also a libertarian-leaning Republican who shares many of the same ideas and principles as GOP leaders such as former Congressman Ron Paul, Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and Congressman Thomas Massie.

In her recent column in Charleston's Post & Courier, Nancy explains why staying in Afghanistan for twenty years was the problem and points her finger directly at the "bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment in Washington" for carrying on America's longest war for so long.

"Is the problem really that we decided to leave Afghanistan after almost 20 years in-country, trillions of dollars spent and thousands of American lives lost?" writes Mace. "I don’t think so."

"The problem was that we didn’t leave soon enough," Mace insists. "We fell into the trap of trying to create order out of chaos, a modern country out of tribalistic people, and democracy out of nowhere."

Mace notes that we were right to go in after 9/11, but that mission should have been brief.

"Our mission in going to Afghanistan was honorable and necessary," Mace notes. "The Taliban, who controlled Afghanistan, harbored and protected the terrorist organization that was behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and they needed to pay a price."

Mace adds, "That price was largely extracted within the initial months in Afghanistan."

Mace, who comes from a military family, observes, "Our military did its best, and it did so with honor and courage, as always. I’m proud of our men and women in uniform. They stuck to their mission, even when they were often targeted by the very people they were trying to train and help. They deserve nothing but honor and praise."

Then Nancy lays direct blame at who is really responsible for our debacle in Afghanistan.

"But I reserve the blame really for the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment in Washington, and it is because of them I am speaking out today," Mace writes.

"We could have saved trillions of dollars and saved thousands of American lives by leaving sooner," Mace finishes. "Let this be the lesson the next time any interventionist — Democratic or Republican — wants to keep us in a never-ending war to nation-build or wants us to police the world."

Read Nancy's entire column here.

No more posts to load.

Back to top