Matt Drudge Just Dropped A 5-Word Bombshell About America And ISIS- What Does It Mean?

With the growth of ISIS into the largest terrorism force in human history, all eyes are on the Iraq and Syrian strongholds of the group, with the Western world figuring out how this threat grew to such a dangerous size so quickly.

But now Matt Drudge has just Tweeted a shocking claim that could upset everything.

On Tuesday morning, November 24, Drudge surprised his followers by tweeting, “A shocking truth is unfolding: America has been arming ISIS…”

There has yet to be any follow up by the famed Internet mogul on this intriguing accusation, but it is certain that more is to come.

In fact, Drudge seems to have felt that the Tweet is so explosive that wiped his Twitter clean, deleting all previous tweets and leaving this single new Tweet standing by itself in his feed.

Drudge also changed his profile picture to a plain and stark black field instead of a photo.

This isn’t the first time that Drudge has deleted all previous tweets.

As TheBlaze reported in May of 2014, Drudge deleted all his tweets at his @DRUDGE account leaving only a message saying, “In this manic Digital Age… It’s vital… To clear your mind… Constantly…”

There is some speculation that the ominous tweet is in reference to claims that Centcom has been cooking intelligence on ISIS to back Obama’s claim that he had the terror group “contained.”

But there has been news for some time that millions in U.S. funding as well as U.S. weapons and war material have ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters in a number of ways.

In fact, GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul has been warning for some time that the U.S. has been “inadvertently arming ISIS.”

“If you want to defeat ISIS, the first thing you have to do is quit supplying them with arms,” Paul said earlier this year.

Watch: The 6-Second Moment Huge Dem Event Gets Crashed By Something They NEVER Saw Coming

While campaigning Friday at Winthrop University in South Carolina, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, took his message to a group he knew needed to hear it — a gaggle of Democrats gathered for an MSNBC presidential forum.


“Senator Paul will happily take his message of liberty and opportunity to every corner of this land,” said Sergio Gor, spokesman for the Kentucky Republican. “It was only right that the voters of South Carolina hear from someone who’s not a socialist or corrupted.”

Paul, who had spent the day at various forums, conducted a number of interviews at the Democratic event. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were in attendance.

He received hoots from Clinton supporters when he appeared on Hardball.

“I think Hillary Clinton is a neocon,” Paul told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. He termed her foreign policy stance “a recipe for disaster.”

“She supported the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan,” Paul said. “If Hillary Clinton is president, we will be back at war in the Middle East.”

Paul had earlier told students that Republicans and Democrats share the blame for the nation’s fiscal policy ills.

“There is a vocal group in the GOP that wants a blank check for the military and Democrats who want a blank check for welfare. It’s an unholy alliance to spend money,” he said.

Giving more power to states ends the federal spending spree, Paul said.

“States don’t have printing presses, they have to spend what they collect,” he said.

Paul also criticized Sanders’ socialist proposals.

“There is nothing for free – there is no free lunch,” Paul said, according to the Charlotte Observer. “If someone offers you something for free, treat them like a drug dealer and walk the other way.”

h/t: TheBlaze

Rand Paul’s Staff Took One Look At What The RNC Just Gave Them Before The Debate, They’re TICKED

Not all candidates’ green rooms are created equal. At least that is what Rand Paul’s campaign discovered during a walk-through Tuesday afternoon at the the venue for the third Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colorado.

In addition to voicing his displeasure with RNC officials at a meeting following the walk-through, Chris LaCivita took to Twitter to air the grievance.

LaCivita’s social media campaign caught the attention of several national media outlets, who reported on the dust up.

Politico noted that Gov. Chris Christie’s campaign apparently received a space very similar to Paul’s. “This is ridiculous,” fumed Christie’s campaign manager, Ken McKay, at Tuesday’s RNC meeting. “We’re in a restroom.”

The debate is taking place at the Coors Event Center on the main campus of the University of Colorado in Boulder. The center seats just over 11,000 people and apparently does not have enough separate spaces to allow the 10 candidates to have similar green rooms.  

“At the last debate, at the Reagan Presidential Library, every campaign got a trailer outside of the library to both prep for the event and house their staff during it,” according to the Washington Times

LaCivita tweeted later on Tuesday that the GOP came up with a better work space for the Paul campaign.

The third Republican presidential debate will be broadcast live starting at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on CNBC. The ten candidates who will take part in the prime time event, based on their rankings in a average of national polls, include: 

  • Donald Trump 25.22
  • Ben Carson: 19.78
  • Marco Rubio: 9.67
  • Jeb Bush: 8.11
  • Carly Fiorina: 8.11
  • Ted Cruz: 6.89
  • Mike Huckabee: 3.56
  • Chris Christie: 3.00
  • John Kasich: 3.00
  • Rand Paul: 3.00

Candidates Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsay Graham and George Pataki will participate in an earlier debate at 6 p.m. Eastern Time.

h/t: Breitbart

Presidential Contenders Leave Peace-And-Freedom Lovers Adrift

Editor’s note: This commentary originally appeared at Sheldon’s blog

These are hard times for us advocates of peace and free markets. As the 2016 presidential campaign heats up, where can we turn — assuming we must turn somewhere? Neither Republicans nor Democrats have much to offer voters who both favor free markets and agree with James Madison (not someone I’m usually fond of quoting) that “of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

One need only watch the Republican “debates” (they’re more like dog shows) to see this. Who among the 14 contenders represents the strain, however faded it is, in American politics that combines Adam Smith, the 18th-century Scottish champion of the “system of natural liberty,” and William Graham Sumner, the turn-of-the-20th-century classical-liberal sociologist who opposed America’s conversion into a global imperial power with the Spanish-American War?

Both men forged some of the most important pro-liberty principles of the American tradition. Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, opposed government privileges for business, such as monopolistic trade restrictions, and imperialist foreign policy, while Sumner condemned the progressives’ embrace of old-world militarism. (See his devastating and still-relevant critique, “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.”) Both understood that political power was the source of most social ills, and their prescription was the same: roll back that power as much as possible in order to unleash individual energy and, in the words of another thinker in this tradition (Albert Jay Nock), “social power.” (Historically, classical liberals understood support for global free markets — essentially a world without borders — and opposition to war as two vital parts of a single integrated program.)

Last month’s three-hour CNN-staged Republican spectacle conspicuously lacked this perspective in favor of peace and free markets. We heard essentially nothing about freedom and free markets but much about military power, foreign intervention, and war. When Donald Trump disparaged free international trade, promising to negotiate tough beggar-our-neighbor “deals,” no one refuted his protectionism and touted the justice and tangible benefits of free-flowing goods and capital. And when he disparaged immigration, again no one refuted his nativism and touted the justice and tangible benefits of free people pursuing better lives no matter where that quest takes them. Nor did anyone note that under a real free-enterprise system, employers wouldn’t be forced to run job candidates’ names through a government database.

A low point in the debate came when Jeb Bush bragged that as governor of Florida, he stopped Trump from building a casino in the state. No one on stage criticized Bush for using government power to thwart free enterprise, just as no one complained that Trump used the government’s eminent-domain power to steal people’s homes.

Similarly, Ben Carson defended raising the minimum wage. If you were waiting for someone on stage to mention that a government-mandated minimum wage (along with a host of other alleged benevolent measures) violates market principles and prices unskilled workers out of jobs, you heard only crickets instead.

On foreign policy, not one Republican stood up for principled peaceful nonintervention, although Sen. Rand Paul cautioned that intervention can backfire. (That’s a mighty pale version of what the “Old Right” writers and politicians offered in their case against war and empire in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.) Several Republicans called for confrontation with Russia (Trump has been a notable exception), branded China an “enemy,” and portrayed President Obama, who’s dropping bombs and otherwise intensifying conflict all over the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, as a peacenik. (That’s the joke of the young century.) Republicans haven’t yet learned (though Rand Paul’s father, Ron, tried to teach them) that U.S. intervention incubated and spread the Islamic jihadism they are so eager to send others to fight and even to face down Russia over.

They all seem especially eager for a war of aggression against Iran, even though it has not been pursuing a nuclear bomb (American and Israeli intelligence agree) and has accepted unprecedented anytime inspections of — and major reductions in — its civilian nuclear industry. In return, economic sanctions will be lifted and assets unfrozen, though Republicans falsely imply that Americans will foot the bill. Republicans, including Rand Paul, tell the most outrageous lies about Iran and the nuclear deal, a strategy that can only serve to prepare Americans for a catastrophic war. Perhaps most outrageous is Trump’s claim, unchallenged in the establishment media, that the agreement would obligate the U.S. government to defend Iran against an Israeli attack — not that the U.S. government should side with Israel. (Republicans ignore that Iran’s animosity to the United States is rooted in the CIA’s 1953 overthrow of a democratic Iranian government, the restoration to power of a brutal monarch, and the continuing U.S. proxy, covert, cyber, and economic warfare against the Iranians.)

Rand Paul might seem to be an exception in this, but is he really? He speaks generally about limiting government power, and to his credit he has protested Obama’s drone warfare against American citizens and mass surveillance. But in many ways, Paul muddies the message and gives aid and comfort to the interventionists. While he cautions against foreign entanglements, he has joined the worst hawks in demonizing Iran and trashing the nuclear agreement. And while he speaks some wisdom about the oppressive drug war, especially its toll on poor minorities, he would force people into so-called rehabilitation. In the debates held so far, Paul has passed up myriad opportunities to promote free immigration and free enterprise.

I wish it were different on the Democrats’ side, but it is not. Where, for instance, is Bernie Sanders’s critique of Hillary Clinton’s support for imperial intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere?

For peace and freedom lovers, it’ll be a long road to Nov. 8, 2016.

(An earlier version of this article was written under the auspices of the Independent Institute, for whom I am a research fellow.)

Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Republicans Are Furious With CNBC Over What They’re Doing To The Next GOP Debate

A nearly 90-minute conference call between CNBC and representatives of Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday turned heated over a CNBC decision regarding the next GOP primary debate.

Many of the Republicans complained about a CNBC plan to drop opening and closing statements to allow more time for questions from moderators at the event, scheduled for Oct. 28 at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The plan was included in a memo the network distributed prior to a conference call that claimed the campaigns had already agreed to the format change, Politico reported.

Eliminating opening and closing statements would allow a more “free flowing discussion, lively candidate interaction, fair treatment of all candidates,” the memo stated, according to Politico.

But during the call, it was clear the campaigns weren’t going along.

The first to object was Ed Brookover, a campaign strategist on the Ben Carson campaign. Two sources on the call told Politico that Brookover threatened to take his concerns public.

Other campaign staffers chimed in, including representatives from Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie.

A top Mike Huckabee aide, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, argued that doing away with the traditional statements would further marginalize lower-tier candidates.

Michael Glassner, a top aide to front-runner Donald Trump, expressed his agreement with those complaining.

Republican National Committee officials who were on the call to said they would take up the matter with CNBC, Politico reported.

In an email to Politico, Sean Spicer, an RNC spokesman, wrote: “The entire purpose of the calls is to provide a two way street of information and feedback. As was stated we are taking their feedback and will follow up.”

What do you think about the possibility of Republican candidates being prevented from making opening and closing statements? Share and comment below.