Daily Clip

The Daily Caller Calls Ron Paul’s Peace Institute Board Members “Radicals”

todayApril 24, 2013 2 2

share close
  • cover play_arrow

    The Daily Caller Calls Ron Paul’s Peace Institute Board Members “Radicals” AbbyMcGinnis

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – This hit piece, and that’s what this is, on the foreign policy initiative, or the Institute for Peace that Ron Paul has launched last week is just another one of these thinly-veiled attempts to kneecap anything that does not go along with the standard company line.  Check out today’s audio and transcript for the rest…

  • cover play_arrow

    The Daily Caller Calls Ron Paul’s Peace Institute Board Members “Radicals” AbbyMcGinnis


Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  If you go to the Daily Caller website, you will find this story: “Academic board of new Ron Paul institute includes 9/11 truth, other radicals.”  Now, I’m not on the board and I’m not mentioned, but I just wonder how people like Jamie Weinstein who wrote the piece and who is the — AG, he’s the editor of Daily Caller, I guess, senior editor I think is the title on the byline?  I wonder what makes up a radical today.  Just because someone — let’s just go through a quick exercise here.  By the by, I am not a “truther.”  Let’s just suppose for a moment that I was.  Let’s just pretend that Mike is a rabid, fire-breathing, “I saw Dick Cheney leaving the West Tower on the morning of September 11th.  It was Bush, Cheney and the decepticon brigade that bombed those buildings to start a war in the Middle East for oil.”  Let’s just say that I did think that or that I had stated that.


Would that then cause any injury to other reporting or other opinions that I might have on whether or not Thomas Jefferson meant to write the word secession instead of separation in the Declaration of Independence?  The fact of the matter is that secession was not used in the 18th century and separation was.  If he had written it in 1876, he probably would have written that: the opinions of mankind require them to declare the reasons which impel them to the secession.  Let’s just say that the work we do here at Founding Father Films, which is brought to life, and my movies, Road to Independence the movie, which most of you do not have or have not seen, or Spirit of ’76 — it’s getting ready to be in its tenth U.S. printing, ten printings of Spirit of ’76: The Greatest Story Never Told.  Does that have any bearing on whether or not I accurately and in a historical and truthful manner presented the facts of Jefferson and his friends and colleagues as they wrote the Declaration or Constitution?

Interview with Ron Paul on Rand, Foreign Policy, Economy, And Homeschooling

road-to-independence-BH-RTIDE2-detailLet’s do another exercise.  It is well known that George Washington was a slave owner.  I don’t think anyone is in denial of that.  Today we think that slavery is abhorrent.  It’s horrible.  It’s human bondage.  No one should ever be enslaved, right?  Jefferson was a slave owner; Madison was a slave owner; George Mason was a slave owner; Patrick Henry was a slave owner.  The list could go on and on and on.  Because at some level they believed in the institution of slavery, does that then make their Declaration or Constitution or their actions or revolution or any of the things they did, does that nullify — by the way, that clip I played at the top of the hour is from one of my docudramedies, a very funny, very entertaining look at what happened after the Constitution was ratified called What Lincoln Killed: Episode I.  Back to the point, does that nullify then the actions, words, writings, deeds of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Henry and all the rest of them?  Does it?  There are actually people out there that have told me: I don’t believe anything that Jefferson wrote because Jefferson was a slave owner.  There are people that actually do think like that.

Wilhelm Roepke And Ron Paul Were Right…History Is Repeating Itself

This hit piece, and that’s what this is, on the foreign policy initiative, or the Institute for Peace that Ron Paul has launched last week is just another one of these thinly-veiled attempts to kneecap anything that does not go along with the standard company line.  Remember, we’re only good when we’re a force for good.  When our Navy is a force for good and is on the high seas, not to protect our trade and commerce, not to protect the coast of California or Maine or Florida or Louisiana or Virginia or North Carolina or South Carolina, we kind of do that but that’s not our real goal.  Our real goal is to get out there and find bad guys that are in the Persian Gulf.  That’s our real goal.  Our real goal is to surround North Korea with enough firepower to obliterate the entire peninsula should we need to.

For more on Ben Franklin, pick up your copy of The Spirit of 76 right here!
For more on Ben Franklin, pick up your copy of The Spirit of 76 right here!

So if you don’t go along with this line here, which is conveniently now touted by both libs and conservatives — you have people that are proponents of and promoters of President Obama that will not say a cross word about him or his foreign policy, which is largely a continuation, not completely, but largely a continuation of the disaster that was the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.  We talked to Michael Scheuer a little bit about that yesterday.  If you don’t go along with this company line, that makes you a radical.  What’s radical about peace?  This is what I find so laughable.  What is radical about the concept of not fighting wars?  While I know that many of you are ready to jump right into the next war, [mocking] “We’ve gotta fight them over there before they come over.  We need to go invade Chechnya right now,” so sayeth John Bolton on the pages of the Washington Times.  Why is the concept or the practice of peace and of being peaceful radical, regardless of who practices it?  I would think you would want people that are distrustful of their government and conspiratorial.  Wouldn’t you want them to be peaceniks?  What’s the alternative to being a peacenik?  The alternative to being a peacenik is to be what, a warmonger?  So you’re conspiratorial and you’re a warmonger?  What is that a recipe for, Mr. Weinstein?

The Republican Party Is On The Wrong Side Of Foreign Policy

I don’t understand — scratch that, of course I understand why these things are written and why they are said.  There are trillions of dollars of other people’s money to be spent by our magisterial government, and much of that money is showered amongst those that promote the status quo and are part of the status quo.  I understand the motivation of it.  No one wants to cut themselves off the breadline or off the gravy train.  That doesn’t make it right.  As we see in so many instances, what is the status quo becomes and has a life all of its own.  It seems impervious to the truth.  It seems impervious to any assault vindicated or I would say needful or warranted assault upon it.  It’s almost as though it’s just made out of pure titanium.  There’s absolutely nothing that can dent it and damage it and stop it.

I don’t know any of these guys.  I don’t know Eric Margolis.  I don’t know any of the two other gentlemen that are mentioned in the piece as being 9/11 truther conspiracy people.  I don’t know them, but that does not change the fact of the matter or the mission of the institute, which is to change the foreign policy of the United States, which some of us think is something that is long overdue and is either going to happen because we will it to be so and because we choose to change our foreign policy and practice a less bellicose form of persuasion, as Stonewall Jackson said to his troops about the Yankee invaders in 1861.  It will either happen because we choose to or it will happen because, like all other empires that have gone before us, the energy expended and fuel needed to keep the energy going will ultimately expire.  Bankruptcy, squalor will ensue.  It will be fiscally impossible to continue the foreign policy and our empirical designs.  It’s as simple as that.  The preferred method of this happening is for the American public to actually demand for it to happen, and for it to happen in some manner of an orderly fashion so that there is not a collapse.  Short of that happening, you can bet that there will be a collapse.

End Mike Church Show Transcript


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (2)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Saddly yes, I remember there was a guy on youtube who just read the first 10 Bill of Rights and a person made a comment that the 2nd Amendment was for thos guys in the wild west time and doesnt need to be around anymore. Lets just say his video got alot of hate and dislikes….so sad.


i know its just the kind of BS the establishment and the foreign policy technocrats throw out to discredit opponents of the “bipartisan foreign policy consensus.” But, it is the people who actually understand and advocate for this insane foreign policy who are the real radicals. As if Ron Paul is radical, while the scoundrels who come up with documents like the Project for a New American Century are to be considered mainstream?

I still want to support Rand Paul, but it drives me crazy that he gives credence to the neocon worldview- as if it is the least bit credible. I know he’s trying to stake out moderate territory- which is unheard of compared to guys like Rubio, Santorum and the rest of those jokers who will likely vie for the nomination in 2016. From what I can tell, elected leaders have very little to do with US foreign policy. It’s all about intelligence ops, corporate interests and CFR-type technocrats. Only through this lens does it make any sense

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x