ISIS has released a new video over the weekend which discusses the self-proclaimed “caliphate’s” long-standing plans to release their own currency, including both gold and silver coins.

The video is a combination of the usual military bellicosity of ISIS videos, a call to global Islamism, and perhaps most unusually, a fairly straightforward call for hard money and an attack on the US Federal Reserve System.

While most of the talk in the past of this “gold dinar” stemmed from religious interpretations of this as the only permissible currency under Islam, ISIS seems to also be piggybacking on the usual talking points of the flaws of a fiat money system and the credit-driven global banking system.

The gold dinar, in this sense, is being presented as a uniquely sound currency, making the Islamic State the lone state in the world with a primary currency that is backed by precious metals, by virtue of being minted out of them.

This could be a shrewd tactic for ISIS, as particularly in oil-dependent Middle Eastern countries the local currencies have been fluctuating pretty wildly of late. The prospect of a more stable currency might make ISIS money more accepted abroad, even in nations overtly hostile to ISIS themselves, than it otherwise would be.

There has been talk of ISIS coming up with these gold dinars virtually since they seized Mosul, as the capture of the city netted them a massive banking complex and a large amount of gold from which to mint currency. There is, however, still no firm date for when this money is actually going to happen, despite the mock-ups being out for so long.

The Defense Department’s new Law of War manual, which provides guidance to military commanders in time of war, advises that journalists they consider “unprivileged belligerents” can be either removed from military facilities or even detained indefinitely without charge. The problem is we are in an endless, undeclared war and the provision is sufficiently vague to potentially include any effective critic of US military action. Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report looks at this disturbing new development:

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

A flurry of reports are coming out hyping former US soldier Ryan O’Leary, who participated in the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and, hearing about the ISIS war, just unilaterally went over there to help the Kurds fight ISIS.

Instead, O’Leary got a little confused, and has decided that Iran is the real problem, even though they are, you know, on the same side in the war as the Kurds. Now, he says he’s training the Kurds to fight against Iran.

O’Leary insists there is “no difference” between Iran and ISIS, and that he is patrolling the Iran-Iraq border on the lookout for “Iranian aggression” at all times.

Except, again, Iran isn’t fighting against the Kurds, and indeed this time last year Iran became one of the first countries to directly arm the Kurds for fighting against ISIS.

O’Leary’s argument is that because he believes the nuclear deal with Iran is so super bad, and because he’s not clear on the difference between Iran and ISIS, he figures Iran will just up and invade Iraqi Kurdistan as soon as the US Congress fails to block the deal. Not that it makes any strategic sense for Iran, but everyone in the US, even the ones unclear on which one is ISIS, know Iran’s the bad guys, right?

Recently 340 US rabbis — from the full spectrum of US Judaism — signed a letter to Congress urging approval of the Iran deal. As AIPAC spends millions lobbying against the deal, perhaps the US Jewish community is not as unified as the neocons would like us to believe. Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report discusses support for the deal:

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Adding to his severe criticism of the Associated Press document purported to be from the IAEA’s side deal with Iran, former IAEA official Tariq Rauf appeared on the Scott Horton Show this afternoon to offer further details on the many, many problems with the document, which he believed to be a forgery.

Among the new topics discussed is the question of why AP reporter George Jahn, when presented with a secret document he wasn’t allowed to take with him, hand-transcribed the text instead of taking an actual photograph with his phone. Rauf compares the document to the “Niger Letter” ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, and goes into detail on why the allegations surrounding the Parchin site in Iran probably aren’t credible in the first place.

The AP alleged on Wednesday that the Iran deal would allow Iran to “inspect itself,” though the initial article was later heavily edited, and ended up almost entirely reaction from US hawks. After the IAEA confirmed this story was untrue, they released the transcript on Thursday, apparently in an effort to vindicate themselves. The revelation that the transcript itself is a forgery just adds to the scandal surrounding the AP’s haphazard reporting on the Iran deal.

Wednesday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” Alan spoke with Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo, who has a controversial theory about Donald Trump’s Presidential run. Raimondo believes Donald Trump might be a “false flag” candidate to help hand the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Raimondo told Alan why he thinks the Democrats are just as pro-war as Republicans, why Trump may drop out of the race (“he’ll pull a Ross Perot”) and guarantee a Clinton victory, and why Trump actually turns off conservative voters.