Rand Paul’s decisions might soon begin to define how the Liberty Movement approaches the next election cycle.

One vote by one person can completely alter the conversation. However, the trend of late has shown more than just opposition.

There are lawmakers who speak strongly of their desire to endlessly commit troops overseas but eventually do nothing but follow along.

When it comes to the actual record of Rand Paul, he is an outlier and speaks with great clarity in his “no” votes on authorizations that lack both clear limits and timelines. It has been noticed by observers who track these “yes/no” votes that there are other ramifications to these types of debates.

What, exactly, are those ramifications? They are compounding and potentially exponential. We reveal them to subscribers below.

Read more

There is a significant historical backdrop to this development. For many years, War Powers Resolutions typically either died in committee or were never brought to the full chamber.

Despite receiving opposition from those wanting faster responses to Iranian actions, the Senate passed this bill. With the passage of this legislation, the issue now goes to the House of Representatives; observers are looking to see if momentum will continue or dissipate.

Timing-wise, gas price and inflation issues are currently weighing heavily on voters. If the United States escalates its actions against Iran, it could add additional pressure at the pump.

Paul and similarly-thinking Senators have previously warned that un-checked military actions can result in unintended consequences for U.S. consumers -- including higher prices at the pump -- without providing any meaningful security benefits.

All four Republicans who voted “yes” received immediate reactions from all sides. While some praised them for standing up for constitutional checks on the Executive Branch, others criticized them for giving-in to what they viewed as weakening our ability to deter hostile actors.

Paul’s plain is laid out below for our subscribers.

Read more

ICYMI: Fauci went to the CIA and overruled their own scientists. He commissioned papers in secret, then cited them as independent evidence. The people determining the origin were the same ones who funded the research.

The cover-up is unraveling. More is coming.

Get 48% off for 1 year

Rand Paul has been saying this for five years. This week a CIA whistleblower said it under oath.

The CIA’s own scientists concluded COVID came from the Wuhan lab. Anthony Fauci was brought in and overruled them. Then he secretly commissioned scientific papers designed to point toward a natural origin, papers he helped write, and then cited those same papers to intelligence committees as independent evidence.

The conflict of interest he was hiding the whole time: he approved the funding for the research in Wuhan. If the lab leak theory was proven true, he was potentially responsible for the pandemic.

So he buried it. At the CIA. In congressional testimony. In the scientific literature. For five years.

It gets worse. Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, two of the most prominent scientists pushing the natural origin theory, were also paid CIA informants. They were being paid to give their opinion on where the virus came from. They were also the ones who did the research that may have caused it. Daszak was even sent to China as the supposedly objective WHO investigator into origins. He was investigating experiments he funded.

Paul’s response to the CIA blasting his hearing on X in real time while it was happening: “Oversight is the American people knowing what happened. They need to know that for five years there has been an organized cover-up.”

More whistleblowers are coming. Rand Paul’s committee has been through hundreds of emails and thousands of documents. He says new information is dropping every week.

This newsletter tracks every hearing, every document drop, and every moment Paul forces the truth into the open that the intelligence community would prefer stayed buried.

48% off through May 31st because 48 might just be his number.

Subscribe before the sale ends. Only 4 days to go!

They told us to follow the science. Turns out the science was following Fauci’s money.

Get 48% off for 1 year

Senator Rand Paul has introduced a legislative solution to address the problem of billions of tax payer dollars being wasted each year due to the creation of duplicate government programs.

His proposed legislation (the Duplication Buster Bill) requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office to perform a duplication review prior to creating a new program which will require new spending.

Once a duplication review occurs and the GAO identifies any programs that are similar to other existing programs, lawmakers will be provided with data that allows them to determine whether to fund a new program or allow the program to duplicate an already established program.

There are numerous examples of agencies creating duplicate programs. For example, job training programs created within multiple departments of the federal government create wasteful duplication. Additionally, there are many instances of the federal government providing multiple different forms of economic development grants through various different federal agencies.

The GAO has reported on these types of duplication for years. However, despite the repeated identification of duplication, Congress continues to move forward with creating new programs regardless of the existence of previous duplication.

The timing of this legislation is important because with rising inflation rates, increasing gas prices and a national debt exceeding $35 trillion, wasteful government spending should not continue.

As previously stated, duplicate spending of taxpayer funds is essentially theft. Therefore, requiring the GAO to identify duplication prior to funding new programs represents a positive step toward reducing wasteful spending.

Senators may argue that they lack sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding the creation of new programs. However, Senator Paul has a retort and a plan for action.

Subscribe today and you can read Paul’s plan to cut duplicitous spending and save America.

Read more

Democrats threw 57 amendments at us today, every single one designed to defund ICE and block Trump’s border security. We rejected them all. Millions of people crossed illegally under Biden. That’s over. We’re funding border security.

This week on the Senate floor he said it plainly. Eight million people came across the border under Biden. It overwhelmed hospitals. It overwhelmed the welfare system. It cannot happen again.

Democrats on the committee refused to fund ICE. Not because of reforms. Not because of accountability concerns. Their own base demanded it and they folded. Paul noted that Tom Homan went to Minneapolis and the streets stayed quiet. The reforms worked. Democrats still would not come to the table.

So Paul helped push the funding through anyway. Eight to five. ICE gets paid. Border Patrol gets paid. The border stays controlled.

He was direct about Trump too. He has not agreed with everything the president has done. But controlling the border is the best thing to happen since Biden left office and he will say so on the record.

That is Rand Paul in a single vote. Principled enough to criticize his own side when warranted. Clear eyed enough to give credit where it is due. Independent enough that when he says something you know he means it.

This newsletter tracks every vote, every floor statement, and every moment where Paul says what nobody else in Washington will say out loud. Paid subscribers get the full picture.

48% off through May 31st because 48 might just be his number someday.

Subscribe before the sale ends.

Eight million people came across. He voted to make sure it never happens again.

Get 48% off for 1 year

Before the votes were counted, before the race was called, Rand Paul was already on X saying what needed to be said.

“When the establishment spends $2.5 million to take out one congressman, you know he’s doing something right.”

That was before AIPAC dropped another $1.5 million in the final week. Before Miriam Adelson’s super PAC added another million. Before the final tally hit $32 million spent to remove a single libertarian congressman from office.

Thomas Massie lost last night. The most expensive House primary in American history ended with the most independent vote in Congress packing his desk.

Rand Paul knows exactly how that feels.

He has watched the establishment spend heavily against him too. He has cast the lonely no vote on spending bills, war authorizations, and surveillance programs while his colleagues lined up to comply. He has been called a traitor, a obstructionist, and worse by people in his own party. He kept voting the same way.

Massie kept voting the same way too. Right up until the end.

The establishment spent $32 million because one man with a voting record scared them that much. Think about what that means. Think about what it says about the people who spent that money and why they needed him gone so badly.

Rand Paul is still standing. And this newsletter exists for the people who understand why that matters.

The ideas Massie fought for, limited government, non-intervention, honest accounting of where the money goes, did not lose last night. They just need new champions.

Paul might be one of them for a long time to come. He might be the 48th president. Either way this newsletter tracks every vote, every statement, and every moment he stands where Massie stood.

48% off through May 31st because 48 might just be his number.

Subscribe before the sale ends.

Get 48% off for 1 year

They spent $32 million on one race. Rand Paul is still here. So are we.

In a recent CNBC interview, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stated that the real danger to the United States is NOT foreign invasions, but rather the rising national debt. He pointed out that the federal deficit has reached $2 trillion dollars; therefore, additional spending of hundreds of billions of dollars more would be disastrous for all Americans.

Sen. Paul emphasized that the growing debt and potential dollar instability pose the greatest long-term threats to the country. He indicated that foreign invasions are “overhyped” and are merely distractions from the true danger.

It is not simply theoretical economics. The damage being done to American families’ finances, retirees’ savings, and the dollar’s international standing is very real. Sen. Paul made this point clear in light of the large-scale spending increases that lawmakers continue to pass with little scrutiny.

Lawmakers treat the Treasury as an unlimited source of funding. Each year, deficits rise due to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle having difficulty resisting the temptation to increase spending.

The deficit projected for the current fiscal year is $2 trillion. Fresh proposals could add hundreds of billions to this amount. Sen. Paul believes taking this path will lead directly to economic disaster.

If you wake up tomorrow morning to find that gas prices have doubled and/or that groceries consume half of your paycheck, then you will begin to see the future that Sen. Paul believes America faces. He’s calling on Washington to take drastic measures to slow down its borrowing.

However, Sen. Paul’s warning extends beyond the immediate effects of excessive spending and applies to a larger trend of fiscal irresponsibility in the nation’s capital.

How stark is Paul’s warning? What might the future hold for Americans? Subscribe now and you’ll be able to read Paul’s vision.

Read more

Each and every week, your U.S. Government sent 22 billion dollars to creditors before purchasing a single tank or school book. That’s the harsh truth Rand Paul revealed in his latest X post highlighting interest payments on the National Debt which swallow $88 billion per month.

This isn’t an abstract number located in a report from a think-tank. These are hard-earned taxpayer dollars ripped from their wallets and given directly to bond-holders while elected officials give themselves pats on the back for being “bi-partisan” in their legislative actions.

Paul was blunt: members of Congress sit idly by as the nation careens toward a financial meltdown and continue to pass spending legislation that feeds the fire.

And things go downhill quickly…

The numbers strike like a freight train. According to the United States Treasury, the national debt has reached $36 trillion and interest payments have exceeded $1 trillion per year. Interest payments exceed the total annual defense budget, a fact reported throughout various studies by the Congressional Budget Office.

Each dollar spent on interest represents a dollar not used to repair roads, secure borders, or lower taxes for middle-class working families. Despite the massive amounts of deficit spending authorized by law makers (i.e., trillions in new deficits created by bloated farm-bill spending, endless foreign aid packages, etc.), Rand Paul is committed to continuing to resist these reckless spending sprees.

What, exactly, is the plan? Subscribe to the Rand Paul Review today to access Paul’s plan as detailed below.

Read more

But his most useful warning for today might be even simpler.

The experts who built our current economic system focused on the intended consequences of their policies.

COMPLIMENTARY GUIDE

Print money and run massive deficits → stimulate the economy.

Pass $4.9 trillion in COVID stimulus → support families and businesses during the crisis.

Expand government spending → grow the economy.

They paid far less attention to the unintended consequences.

Because those consequences are what we’re living with right now.

Persistent inflation—fueled by that enormous stimulus spending—that drove consumer prices up 7% (the largest rise in 40 years) and hit gas, groceries, used cars, and housing hard.

Paychecks and retirement accounts that quietly lose real purchasing power while everyday costs climb.

A regressive burden that falls heaviest on low- and middle-income families, who spend nearly 40% of their income on these inflated essentials.

Rand Paul has repeatedly called this out as a hidden tax that erodes your money without ever being voted on.

The experts didn’t plan for this part.

Some people who read Rand Paul did.

They looked beyond the good intentions and asked: “What actually happens next when Washington keeps printing and spending?” These critical thinkers made different decisions because of it—protecting themselves from the hidden costs of endless inflation.

A breakdown of what those decisions look like in today’s environment is available here.

Free Complimentary Guide

Free Info on Protecting Yourself

LEARN MORE

“The Federal Reserve pays both foreign and domestic banks to simply park their money... Over the past five years, the Fed’s big bank bailout amounts to over half a trillion dollars.” — Rand Paul

But his most useful warning for today might be even simpler.

The experts who built our current economic system focused on the intended consequences of their policies.

COMPLIMENTARY GUIDE

Pay big banks billions in Fed subsidies → stabilize the financial system.

Use Interest on Reserve Balances and related programs → keep markets functioning smoothly.

Expand these ongoing payments → support the banking sector.

They paid far less attention to the unintended consequences.

Because those consequences are what we’re living with right now.

Ongoing Fed bailouts for big banks—over half a trillion dollars in the last five years—that act as straight-up welfare to Wall Street, operate the Fed at a loss, and prevent profits from flowing back to taxpayers.

Distorted monetary policy that transfers wealth away from average Americans to the biggest banks (including foreign ones).

A system where your financial security quietly subsidizes these repeated giveaways instead of building real stability.

Rand Paul has directly challenged this with his End the Fed’s Big Bank Bailout Act, arguing it’s time to stop the forcible transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.

The experts didn’t plan for this part.

Some people who read Rand Paul did.

They looked beyond the good intentions and asked: “What actually happens next when the Fed keeps bailing out big banks?” These critical thinkers made different decisions because of it—protecting themselves from the hidden costs of these bailouts.

A breakdown of what those decisions look like in today’s environment is available here.

Free Complimentary Guide

Free Info on Protecting Yourself

LEARN MORE

Can a president legitimately bomb Iran after a 47-year-old grudge match?

Senator Rand Paul just absolutely destroyed the notion of a perpetual 47-year grudge match against Iran being enough for a president to simply bomb them, in a clip tearing through social media.

Paul stated bluntly: “A 47-year-old conflict does not qualify.” He focused specifically on Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and asked directly whether current reports indicate an immediate and pressing danger sufficient enough to justify ignoring the Constitution and launching a unilateral bombing campaign.

This isn’t some theoretical debate. Paul’s advocacy revives one of the fundamental tenets of American democracy that has been buried beneath decades of presidential overreach.

The Letter of the Law

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive authority to formally declare war. However, since the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, presidents from both political parties have used that law as a rubber-stamp to authorize their own versions of “limited,” never-ending interventions.

How does this work when any president can just make up whatever they want for “imminent”?

Paul’s argument is razor-sharp. He zeroes in on Iran’s nuclear program – a concern that has driven headlines for years. Enrichment levels are rising, and enrichment facilities continue to churn along.

Is there anything indicative of an “imminent” attack on our soil? Paul believes not, and he is right to say so and has historical precedent backing him. The term “imminent threat” implies immediacy: an attack is either underway or will be launched immediately. It does not imply vague escalations, nor does it refer to 40-plus-year-long conflicts.

Iran’s 47 year conflict started in 1979 with the hostage crisis and has been ongoing since through proxy conflicts, sanctions, saber-rattling etc. Intelligence reports show uranium stockpiles are approaching weapons grade levels, the IAEA reports that Iran could potentially produce material needed for a weapon within weeks if it wanted to.

Threats do not Equate to Action

Paul pounds home the key point: theory is not imminence. There is no public evidence indicating Tehran has armed missiles for launch or is transferring nukes to terrorists who plan to attack.

Congress has allowed this type of thing before and the costs continue to mount. The 2001 authorization for use of military force was originally intended as a blank check for military action against al-qaeda following 911.

Instead it became a blank check for operations in over dozen countries.

Libya in 2011? Obama called it “Kinetic military action” which did not require congressional approval. Strikes on Syria by Trump were similar.

Now whispers about preemptively attacking Iran echo the same playbook.

Paul isn’t buying it. Paid subscribers can find out why below.

Read more

As the statute of limitations for charging Dr. Anthony Fauci for lying to Congress about the National Institute of Health (NIH) funding of “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan laboratory draws to a close, Rand Paul has issued an urgent call for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to take action. According to Paul, the DOJ has merely seven days to file charges against Fauci for allegedly being part of the biggest cover-up in modern medical history. Millions of people around the globe reportedly perished during the COVID-19 pandemic; trillions of dollars vanished into thin air; and Fauci continued to profit off the COVID-19 pandemic via book deals and media appearances while America burned. Although Rand Paul has filed numerous referrals against Fauci for lying to Congress about his role in supporting the NIH’s funding of the Wuhan laboratory’s gain-of-function research, the case remains open. There is simply too much evidence that supports Paul’s allegations to ignore.

So how did we arrive at this point?

On May 11, 2021, Fauci appeared before the United States Senate and told Senators that his agency had not funded “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan laboratory. However, grant records, emails, and later admissions from the NIH would reveal that Fauci was incorrect. Taxpayer monies flowed from Fauci’s NIH through EcoHealth Alliance to experimentally enhance bat corona virus’ ability to infect humans. Funding such experimental research is not a simple paperwork error. Rather, it constitutes a reckless scientific approach that could -- and arguably did -- create a global catastrophe.

Following Fauci’s testimony before the Senate, Fauci and others within the federal bureaucracy engaged in an exercise of self-preservation. As families lost their loved ones due to the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses failed, children experienced developmental setbacks resulting from unnecessary school closures and other related draconian measures, Fauci became an apparent hero on TV. At the same time that Fauci received praise from the media, the very same bureaucracy that helped fund dangerous research in a Chinese Communist Party-controlled laboratory implemented the lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine passport policies. Any scientist that spoke out against Fauci’s position were ridiculed or smeared. The concept of natural immunity was essentially removed from the discussion. Although the lab-leak theory was initially considered a conspiracy theory, it eventually emerged as the most likely origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite mounting evidence and growing concern among members of Congress regarding the cover-up surrounding Fauci’s involvement in funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Laboratory, the cover-up machinery continued to operate.

Does this represent the best that Americans can reasonably expect from their institutions?

Paid subscribers get the full story on Rand Paul continuing to hunt down Fauci.

Will Trump's DOJ do its job?

Get 48% off for 1 year

Read more

Our financial system is fragile, and our debt keeps getting worse. As Republicans, we need to be for balanced budgets and less spending, no matter who is in the White House.

People don’t know how close we are to disaster.

Rand Paul told it straight without beating around the bush. Bring a check for $1,000 to your bank and ask them to give you back all of your money.

bank only has 10% reserves. It lends the other 90%. That is called fractional reserve lending and it works until it stops.

When banks take CDs and offer you 2% interest while lending you money at 3% or higher (classic spread) it is easy to scale up and have banks lend 90% of checking deposits.

All it takes is one spark of panic for a bank run.

We saw a little of this with Silicon Valley Bank

Read more

Claims that COVID vaccines slash kids’ hospitalizations and deaths? The data says otherwise; those numbers were practically zero before the shots. It’s time to ditch blind faith, demand real answers, and rethink government mandates putting kids at risk without clear benefits.

Finally, the mask is off.

When questioned sharply by Sen. Rand Paul, former CDC Acting Director, Dr. Susan Monarez admitted the obvious fact many had long suspected: the COVID vaccine will not prevent people from spreading the virus.

Lower viral loads may occur. However, any reduction in the transmission of the virus itself? No. What is more, the new Omicron era vaccines provide a benefit of little to none, at best 16% (if any).

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

When will America reach the point where we expect simple protections in our elections?

You are asked to provide identification to fly on an airplane. If you want to buy alcohol (depending upon the state) or borrow books from libraries in many jurisdictions, you can do so if you have ID.

But when it comes to selecting individuals who have taxing authority, border jurisdiction and war-making authority, there is no evidence needed. Senator rand Paul has put an end to such thinking.

Paul recently announced his co-sponsorship of the SAVE Act. “At the very least, showing identification should be a minimum to vote”, Paul said. It’s a clear statement from a champion of liberty who is fed up with the elites’ charade.

Paul is America’s Ambassador of Common Sense

This is not some extreme infringement. The SAVE Act requires documentation that shows proof of citizenship for anyone registering to vote in federal elections. States currently require ID for all drivers license applications and gun sales.

What is wrong with applying the same standards for voting?

The announcement by Paul cuts through the haze. Democrats claim this is voter suppression; however they are terrified of transparency into sloppy voter registration processes.

Non-citizens registered to vote? Chaos exists in every jurisdiction.

What happens when millions of illegal ballots suppress your voice?

Buck Sexton questioned Paul on how opponents would respond. Paul was confident in his response. By co-sponsoring the SAVE Act, Paul turns back the clock on filibusters and other obstructionist tactics used by senators.

It’s time for members of Congress to reclaim their responsibility to ensure honest elections, rather than relying on activist judges and liberal state election officials to do so.

Paul Speaks for Americans

Voter integrity is not a partisan issue; it is an essential component of democracy.

Without it, free market systems collapse due to rigged election results. Big government grows as fraudulent elections favor those seeking to increase spending.

Democracy itself dies when cheaters exceed Patriots at polling places.

Think of the consequences of weak elections leading to weak policy. With midterm elections looming, inflation is destroying consumers’ pockets and our borders are chaotic.

Wars abroad continue to inflate gas prices while sanctuary city governments protect law breakers at home. Paul understands that weak elections produce weak policy.

The SAVE Act addresses the problem directly. There shall be no more “honor system” registration with only a utility bill necessary. Documentary proof; photo id; minimal requirements as insisted upon by Paul.

Those opposing the SAVE Act use anecdotes about grandmas waiting in long lines. Fact: most States provide free photo IDs. Grandmas drive to bingo with them already.

Rhetoric after rhetoric from the left. They filibustered previous versions of bills like this. Now, senators Thune and others consider passing it. Paul is in agreement and he provided a reason for hope.

What’s the reason? It’s revealed below to paid subscribers.

Read more

RAND PAUL: “Spreading rhetoric that encourages political violence is a disservice to our country. Normalizing violence only fuels further division and unrest.

While the Constitution protects free speech, we must draw a clear line against rhetoric that threatens the safety and fabric of our society.”

Charlie Kirk’s murder has left an icy chill over this nation.

A sniper killed a young father and relentless conservative voice right in the middle of a debate that he advocated for. Grief remains raw.

Within moments of Kirk’s murder, there were several parts of the web that celebrated the murder rather than expressing remorse. There were also direct calls for additional violence.

Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky, spoke to the issue clearly and personally. He and his wife Kelly continue grieving Kirk. Paul knows firsthand what it feels like to be attacked for a political stance. Let us not forget, Paul was previously ambushed from behind while mowing his lawn. Six ribs were fractured. An area of his lung was removed.

Many have made light of the pain he suffered. Many have encouraged others to physically harm him.

At this point, we have crossed a line.

Paul explained it simply: online social media platforms should remove postings which advocate for or celebrate violence. In most workplaces, if someone expressed similar sentiments, that person would face consequences based upon contract provisions either concerning moral or conduct clauses.

Military personnel are governed by strict codes of conduct.

Schools enforce codes regarding certain types of speech.

Why must the digital public forum continue to serve as a lawless zone where violent threats thrive?

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

If you’re outraged over the indictment of James Comey but were silent when Roger Stone was dragged out of bed for the same charges, you’re not for justice. You’re for partisan lawfare.

We need one standard for all, not one for Republicans and another for Democrats.

Thank you…

Where Were the Protests Back Then?” Comey Confronts Same Prosecution the Left Praised Before

A reflection of the problems plaguing “lawfare” in America - and the double standard of Democratic politicians

When did we stop treating former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey as a political enemy? Why do Democratic politicians only develop a sense of morality when their own guy becomes a victim of prosecution?

Former President Donald Trump supporters know exactly what I’m talking about. The same federal charges used to justify the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone last year - lying to Congress, obstruction of justice - are now being leveled against Comey. However, when Stone was raided, the left was ecstatic. There was no public outcry or discussion regarding the egregious abuse of power displayed by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice (DOJ). Instead, the left cheered.

To understand just how hypocritical this behavior truly is, becoming a paid subscriber will allow you to follow the bread crumbs that legacy media always seems to bury.

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

On its surface, calling health care a “right” sounds like compassion. Physician and Senator Rand Paul strips the prettied up packaging. Calling health care a “right” isn’t just abstract.

Saying you have a “right” to health care means you think someone else owes you their work.

Such logic means you have a “right” to conscript the doctors, nurses, janitors, clerical personnel, etc. that provide health care.

That’s a form of slavery.

Get 30% off for 1 year

Are We Willing to use State Force to Mandate Healthcare?

Plainly speaking, saying you have a “right” to a doctor’s services implies you are willing to use police, take the doctor at gun point, and make him/ her treat you. The same applies to the hospital cleaning crew and office personnel.

The use of state violence to force healthcare simply does not make sense.

What rights do we have?

We have the right to pursue happiness. We have no guarantees of material comforts or tangible items.

For someone to give you a “right” to someone else’s time, expertise, or resources they will have to take it from them first. And there will be some implied coercive action.

Politicians want to get around this. They describe government-run healthcare as moral progress. They disregard that every “free” service is either funded through taxation (extracted from you at gunpoint) or through mandating that providers supply such services.

Americans Refuse to Trade Liberty for Authoritarianism

The implications of these policies become much clearer once you follow the chain of causality.

Do you have a “right” to plumbing? Food? Water?

Every additional positive “right” will require that someone else provide services for your benefit via force. The societies which follow this path replace voluntary charity and marketplace exchange with centralized control and reduced liberty.

Senator Paul contrasts the reality of how things currently exist on the ground with how he envisions healthcare to operate. Medical providers, particularly doctors and hospitals, have been providing medical care, including 100 percent accessibility through emergency rooms for true emergencies.

Many do so freely. Many are motivated by a variety of reasons, including the Hippocratic Oath, Christian obligation, hospital privileges, etc.

These systems were able to function without doctors becoming part of the state apparatus. Though it takes some time, human decency eventually steers the course of society through philanthropy, charity, and altruism.

Granted, emergency room visits differ from routine primary care. No one argues about this. However, the drive to establish universal positive “rights” muddles those distinctions and increases the role of government in virtually every decision regarding medical treatment.

This is typically the end of the discussion in polite society, however, the underlying mechanics of how granting “rights” to services will ultimately erode liberty and quality of care expose common historical patterns.

Subscribe today to gain access to a comprehensive breakdown and witness firsthand how this philosophy manifests itself in practice.

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

What evidence supports giving a shot to a 6-month-old? Former CDC Director Monarez allowed unelected bureaucrats to push this agenda without any accountability.

Rand Paul Calls for Real Data on Vaccine Safety for Young Children

A doctor and senator are in a room.

Which do you trust?

If you are interested in real science, not bureaucratic jargon, you trust the doctor.

When Dr. Rand Paul recently spoke at a U.S. Senate hearing, he was direct and forthright.

He agreed that restoring public trust in the nation’s public health system would require honest discussion about actual science.

Not slogan statements such as “all vaccines are safe” or “all vaccines are bad”.

Paul concentrated his focus on the COVID-19 vaccine given to very young children.

He asked: Does this vaccine stop children from spreading the COVID-19 virus?

The government-approved witness made her typical response, using phrases such as “reduced viral load.”

Paul pressed the issue, insisting her words mean that it doesn’t prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Even though vaccinated individuals are less likely to become infected with the virus, they may still pass the virus along to others.

Furthermore, this reduced effect weakens rapidly with time. By the point when Omicron became the dominant variant of COVID-19, the amount of reduction in transmission due to vaccination was roughly 16% (at best).

We’ve Been Betrayed by Big Government Again

Parents who had been forced to submit to mandates deserve more than generic promises.

Next came the tough questions.

Will the COVID-19 vaccine protect children aged 17 and below from being hospitalized due to complications caused by COVID-19?

“It can…” was the response.

The statistics regarding hospitalization rates for children under 18 years old are not conclusive. Additionally, there was an extremely low number of hospitalizations and deaths in children due to COVID-19. Roughly 76 million children are under 18 in America.

From 2020 and 2021 approximately 183 children died and fewer than a thousand were hospitalized due to COVID-19. Afterward, both numbers plummeted. Healthy children were never the major cause of the national emergency created by the media and politicians.

Nonetheless, there existed intense pressure to give a COVID-19 shot to even the youngest children.

The exchange intensified concerning child fatalities. Does it lower the mortality rate for children under 18 years old?

Once again, “It can.” No, it does not. There is no empirical evidence. These are statistics. We have reviewed them.

The Truth is Trickling Out

During internal discussions within the vaccine review committee on whether to approve vaccines for COVID-19, officials admitted that there was no clear proof that COVID-19 vaccines lowered the hospitalization or fatality rates for children aged 17 and under.

What did they shift to?

Antigen levels.

Since the shot creates antigen levels, they recommended it starting from six months of age.

Paul instantly recognized the problem: injecting a foreign protein into an individual every week and measuring their antigen level would prove absolutely nothing about real world benefit.

Basic immunological principles cannot justify routinely administering vaccinations to healthy infants who already had virtually zero chance of serious adverse outcome and which continued to decline dramatically.

The Jab was a Net Negative

Large population-based research demonstrates that myocarditis represents a significant risk in younger people. The jab causes myocarditis.

When you examine the age-based data, the signal becomes apparent.

Myocarditis occurred at rates ranging between six and ten per ten thousand in specific age groups. The measured risk of myocarditis far exceeds the nearly non-existent demonstrated benefit of COVID-19 vaccination in reducing hospitalization or death in most children.

There exists a much larger degree of disconnection between how these grossly disproportionate risk/benefit analyses destroyed public faith and split families beyond what most headlines acknowledge. Subscribers will receive a comprehensive view of the patterns that account for ongoing growth in distrust towards liberty-oriented Americans.

Read more

Rand Paul is correct. The taxpayers should NOT be subsidizing the NFL or NBA etc.

“It’s ridiculous that the average tax payer who can’t afford to go to an NFL Superbowl HAS TO PAY for their security.”

NFL fans and viewers, at least, are accustomed to the NFL raking in billions each year. In fact, one could argue that the NFL charges its fans (and therefore the U.S. taxpayer) outrageous prices for a chance to attend a game — or even purchase a ticket to watch. And, according to Paul, despite that the average taxpayer, who would never be able to afford such a ticket, gets to foot the bill for the “specialized security support” provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes drones, counter-drone technologies, and all the DHS-related preparatory work to ensure those multi-million dollar events happen without incident.

According to Paul, DHS’ provision of advanced security technologies to protect the NFL and FIFA are nothing more than “blank checks” issued to multi-billion-dollar organizations — using the funds of broke taxpayers.

To Paul, this is not anti-sports; it’s simply common sense.

As he pointed out, the NFL and FIFA are not mom-and-pop operations. They are entertainment empires swimming in cash. As a result, Paul believes that the NFL and FIFA can easily afford to either provide their own private security or, alternatively, to reimburse the U.S. government for the advanced security assistance it provides.

However, the reality remains that the U.S. taxpayers — including working-class Americans who may never set foot inside an NFL or FIFA stadium — bear the financial burden.

The issue is not unique to football and/or soccer. This is also a reflection of a larger problem — the trend of Washington to view corporate profits as public responsibilities, while simultaneously exploding the national debt.

Paul has consistently sounded the alarm regarding the $2 trillion deficit — and the need for America to begin paying off that debt. Paul argues that we cannot continue to provide corporate welfare in the guise of “cooperation in security.”

Additionally, Paul believes that another disturbing pattern exists, although most people do not realize it. That is, while working-class families are told to accept the idea of “shared sacrifices,” the billion-dollar corporations receive behind-the-scenes handouts in the form of free or low-cost government muscle. For example, DHS provides U.S. taxpayers with advanced security measures, including drone patrols and advanced threat detection systems, to protect billionaire and celebrity attendees at events.

What happens when additional events come along, and the bill continues to land on your doorstep, you will find yourself surprised by how far down the rabbit hole this corporate welfare really extends.

Paid subscribers receive the full, unfiltered analysis — including the underlying connections, the actual dollar amounts, and the trends that explain why this type of corporate freeloaders seem to never disappear.

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more