The Freedom Report

Daily Beast reporter Joel Kotkin wrote a terrific piece blasting Democrats for their arrogance, and breaks down in detail why Blue Staters have their heads up their... you know what. Democrat rage is all the rage these days, as Antifi riots against free speech and whiney liberal comedians sputter their impotent rage 5 nights a week on TV. The oikophobia has reached a fever pitch as Democrats are blaming all their problems on the Red Staters in their communities, but the problems of liberals are of their own making. Austin Petersen, former POTUS candidate explains why. 

DailyWire.com editor Ben Shapiro took an axe to President Donald Trump's "Buy American" plans, arguing that the consequences amounted to nothing more than "leftism" and protectionism. Shapiro didn't mince words in an essay on the National Review, invoking FDR era reforms which destroyed American trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. Austin Petersen breaks down the news. 

If you could live 100 years ago as a millionaire, or just as you are today, would you do it? Austrian economist Donald Boudreaux writes a fascinating article which compares the living standards of millionaires 100 years ago to the middle class today. Capitalism has certainly changed the lives of the middle class, but do people even recognize the magnificence and bounty of our modern world? Austin Petersen dives into the history of free markets and follows up with a bonus segment about the dire predictions from liberal activists about the threats of global climate calamity. 

In a brilliant piece by Caitlin Flanagan at the Atlantic, a liberal writer self reflects on how the comedy shows of hosts such as Samantha Bee, John Oliver, and Jimmy Fallon may have been important influencers in the rise of Donald Trump. Flanagan dissects the various ways in which liberals derided not just the president, but his supporters, giving conservatives a good reason to do whatever they could to stop a Democrat from taking the White House. Austin Petersen, former 2016 candidate for president himself breaks down the news. 

Pat Buchanan asks in a column whether the dream of an "America First" foreign policy is over. Paleoconservatives have taken a back seat in the Trump administration with the news that advisor Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Council only days before the administration bombed Syria's Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people. Neoconservatives who desire regime change were giddy, and mainstream media pundits took to the airwaves to applaud the president in some cases for the first time ever. Austin Petersen breaks down the news. 

Conspiracy Radio host Alex Jones is in a bitter custody battle for his children with his former wife. Jones' attorney Randall Wilhite told District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that his client shouldn't be evaluated based on his appearances on his popular broadcasts on Infowars.com. Wilhite argued that judging Jones as a father in such a way would be akin to judging Jack Nicholson based on his appearance as The Joker in "Batman."  "He's playing a character. He is a performance artist," Wilhite claims.  Jones' ex-wife disagrees, claiming that the show host actually believes all the wild conspiracies that he rants to an audience of nearly 7.6 million people regularly. “He’s not a stable person,” she said. “He says he wants to break Alec Baldwin’s neck. He wants J-Lo to get raped. I’m concerned that he is engaged in felonious behavior, threatening a member of Congress,” she said, referring to recent comments about Democrat Adam Schiff. “He broadcasts from home. The children are there, watching him broadcast.” Jones, who's been labeled by Roger Stone as "Trump's secret weapon" is now faced with defending his validity over the arguments from his lawyer that he's simply a performance artist. If that's true, then would that be a conflict of interest for someone to sell water filters if they didn't really believe that the government was poisoning it with fluoride? Why do people believe in such wild conspiracy theories anyway? Austin Petersen breaks down the story and makes 

A terrific article by Jonathon Van Maren at The Bridgehead dissects the political philosophy of the Alt-Right in regards to abortion. Van Maren, a traditional conservative, breaks down the words of alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer and his comments on why he despises the "egalitarian" aims of the pro-life movement. Spencer disregards the pro-life's belief that all individual humans have a right to life. Petersen breaks down the news. 

The New York Post is reporting that firebrand Tomi Lahren is out permanently at Glenn Beck's the Blaze. This follows what was thought to be a temporary ban and now turns out to be all but temporary. Conservative media outlets are in a tizzy after a string of high profile firings and employees leaving, citing less than stringent editorial standards. Now many of these outlets are seeking to professionalize themselves considering that they are facing more scrutiny now their ideas are in power. Austin Petersen breaks down the news. 

The Blaze host Tomi Lahren is in hot water after she revealed on "The View" that she was pro-choice, and that pro-life conservatives were hypocrites. Lahren drew ire from the Blaze owner Glenn Beck for her comments on Twitter along with a sharp rebuke. Austin Petersen breaks down the controversy. 

Austin Petersen reads an article from the Wall Street Journal which exposes the electoral consequences of leftist moral outrage. In a brilliant piece, Petersen discusses how leftist narratives on white guilt led to the type of reactionary politics we have in the United States today. Petersen also goes through a list of Public Policy rules, in order to advance the libertarian cause, as well as offers a sneak preview of his upcoming book. 

Senator Rand Paul has come under increasing scrutiny in recent days for his confirmation vote of Senator Jeff Sessions to the position of Attorney General. Paul defended his vote for sessions in an interview with Kennedy on Fox Business thusly:  "I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that. But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators." Paul also recently argued against an investigation into the departure of president Donald Trump's national security advisor Michael Flynn, who was accused of lying to vice president Michael Flynn about the discussions Flynn had with a Russian ambassador about US sanctions. In an interview with Brian Kilmeade, Paul argued:  "I think that might be excessive. It looks like the President has handled the situation, and unless there's some kind of other evidence of malfeasance, this sounds like something that was internal White House politics and it looks like the President's handled it."  Very good reasoning there, but Paul took it one step further, angering many when he went on to say: "I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense." Is Paul arguing for party over principle? All that and more on the Freedom Report podcast!   

Senator Rand Paul has come under increasing scrutiny in recent days for his confirmation vote of Senator Jeff Sessions to the position of Attorney General. Paul defended his vote for sessions in an interview with Kennedy on Fox Business thusly:  "I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that. But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators." Paul also recently argued against an investigation into the departure of president Donald Trump's national security advisor Michael Flynn, who was accused of lying to vice president Michael Flynn about the discussions Flynn had with a Russian ambassador about US sanctions. In an interview with Brian Kilmeade, Paul argued:  "I think that might be excessive. It looks like the President has handled the situation, and unless there's some kind of other evidence of malfeasance, this sounds like something that was internal White House politics and it looks like the President's handled it."  Very good reasoning there, but Paul took it one step further, angering many when he went on to say: "I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense." Is Paul arguing for party over principle? All that and more on the Freedom Report podcast!   

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/john-stossel-donald-trump-has-just-broken-my-heart/ By Kody Fairfield In an Op-Ed for Fox News, former television show host and liberty journalist John Stossel penned that President Donald Trump had “broken his heart” in regards to his actions on immigration, threats of punitive tariffs, and “trashing trade.” The liberty stalwart started off his opine by admitting that he was never a Trump supporter, though he found excitement in his first days as President, explaining that, “on TV I have called him a bully, a narcissist, etc. — but his first days were thrilling!” Stossel exclaimed “finally” there was a President who “meant it when he said he’d cut red tape that kills growth, a man who mocks political correctness and sneers at leftist reporters.” He lauded the people Trump had picked for his various cabinet positions, say that these people were not “the political hacks I’ve come to expect from D.C. — not the smug bureaucracy-lovers Hillary Clinton would have inflicted on us.” The long time journalist continued, “[they] understand the limits of government command and control, people eager to lift the web of opportunity-smothering rules.” “Trump revived the Keystone pipeline, froze federal hiring. Wow.” said Stossel. It was at this point that Stossel, a reformed liberal turned lover of liberty, started to explain why, after all his previous praise, President Trump had broken his heart. His immigrant ban is bad. I won’t write about it until I know more. But even before that, he said he’d impose a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports, and he trashed trade by insisting that “we want the (Keystone) pipe to be manufactured here!” I know — he said stuff like that when campaigning, but I didn’t think he meant it. His own businesses use overseas suppliers if they are cheaper or better. He must know that tariffs punish Americans, that a trade war helped create the Depression. “Protecting” jobs with bans and tariffs is counterproductive. Stossel, after mentioning the economic protectionism, predicted that Trump supporters would sneer at him for his comments, but her went on to explain: Yes, some steelworkers’ jobs are saved by buy-American edicts, but more jobs will be lost. It’s hard to recognize this because of a conflict economist Frederic Bastiat called “the seen vs. the unseen.” We see the jobs at a steel plant. If it closes, our cameras record the moment. We interview the workers on their last day. Our hearts break at their disappointment. Many won’t find other jobs, or jobs that pay as well. We want to “do something” to help. What we don’t as easily see, though, are the many jobs created if companies are free to use steel that’s a little cheaper. We don’t see the jobs created by the dynamism that results when people are free to buy and sell all over the world. Alternatively, we don’t easily see the jobs that never get created because tariffs or “buy American” rules make ingredients more expensive. “History makes it clear: Where trade is free, prosperity follows. When it is restricted, stagnation follows.” said the libertarian-minded host. To validate his claim against “protectionism,” Stossel explained the degression of China, where in 1400 the country was a beacon of innovation, proliferating the use gunpowder, paper and printing process. “Then they walled themselves off. They burned the trading ships. The emperor wanted to ‘protect’ the Chinese from outsiders.” he said. “The result was stagnation. By last century (before free market reforms), China was one of the poorest nations on earth,” Stossel concluded. Stossel then moved to speaking about Trump’s inauguration speech, in which Trump promises “to take power from W

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/john-stossel-donald-trump-has-just-broken-my-heart/ By Kody Fairfield In an Op-Ed for Fox News, former television show host and liberty journalist John Stossel penned that President Donald Trump had “broken his heart” in regards to his actions on immigration, threats of punitive tariffs, and “trashing trade.” The liberty stalwart started off his opine by admitting that he was never a Trump supporter, though he found excitement in his first days as President, explaining that, “on TV I have called him a bully, a narcissist, etc. — but his first days were thrilling!” Stossel exclaimed “finally” there was a President who “meant it when he said he’d cut red tape that kills growth, a man who mocks political correctness and sneers at leftist reporters.” He lauded the people Trump had picked for his various cabinet positions, say that these people were not “the political hacks I’ve come to expect from D.C. — not the smug bureaucracy-lovers Hillary Clinton would have inflicted on us.” The long time journalist continued, “[they] understand the limits of government command and control, people eager to lift the web of opportunity-smothering rules.” “Trump revived the Keystone pipeline, froze federal hiring. Wow.” said Stossel. It was at this point that Stossel, a reformed liberal turned lover of liberty, started to explain why, after all his previous praise, President Trump had broken his heart. His immigrant ban is bad. I won’t write about it until I know more. But even before that, he said he’d impose a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports, and he trashed trade by insisting that “we want the (Keystone) pipe to be manufactured here!” I know — he said stuff like that when campaigning, but I didn’t think he meant it. His own businesses use overseas suppliers if they are cheaper or better. He must know that tariffs punish Americans, that a trade war helped create the Depression. “Protecting” jobs with bans and tariffs is counterproductive. Stossel, after mentioning the economic protectionism, predicted that Trump supporters would sneer at him for his comments, but her went on to explain: Yes, some steelworkers’ jobs are saved by buy-American edicts, but more jobs will be lost. It’s hard to recognize this because of a conflict economist Frederic Bastiat called “the seen vs. the unseen.” We see the jobs at a steel plant. If it closes, our cameras record the moment. We interview the workers on their last day. Our hearts break at their disappointment. Many won’t find other jobs, or jobs that pay as well. We want to “do something” to help. What we don’t as easily see, though, are the many jobs created if companies are free to use steel that’s a little cheaper. We don’t see the jobs created by the dynamism that results when people are free to buy and sell all over the world. Alternatively, we don’t easily see the jobs that never get created because tariffs or “buy American” rules make ingredients more expensive. “History makes it clear: Where trade is free, prosperity follows. When it is restricted, stagnation follows.” said the libertarian-minded host. To validate his claim against “protectionism,” Stossel explained the degression of China, where in 1400 the country was a beacon of innovation, proliferating the use gunpowder, paper and printing process. “Then they walled themselves off. They burned the trading ships. The emperor wanted to ‘protect’ the Chinese from outsiders.” he said. “The result was stagnation. By last century (before free market reforms), China was one of the poorest nations on earth,” Stossel concluded. Stossel then moved to speaking about Trump’s inauguration speech, in which Trump promises “to take power from W

Donald Trump signed an executive order formally withdrawing the United States from talks which would have secured a Trans Pacific Partnership with some of America's foremost trading partners. Former presidential candidate Austin Petersen explains the pros and cons of the deal, and discusses why free markets should always be the center of any discussion regarding trade.