The big news last year was that billionaire oligarchs Charles Koch and George Soros were "burying the hatchet" and teaming up to fund a new US foreign policy based on restraint rather than "endless wars." From that cooperation came the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, as well as additional funding for other organizations working on "restraint." Is this a game-changer or is it an attempt to re-brand old ideas and discredited individuals and institutions?
By Adam Dick
During a new Fox News interview, Watters’ World host Jesse Watters asked former United States House of Representatives member and presidential candidate Ron Paul to give President Donald Trump a grade based on Paul’s evaluation of Trump’s actions as president concerning three major policy areas. In regard to those policy areas — immigration, economic, and foreign policy, Paul said Trump has earned “C-minuses” across the board.
Despite entreaties by Watters for higher grades, Paul would not budge from his assessment.
Watch here the complete interview in which Paul discusses some of the reasoning behind his grading of Trump’s presidency:
The Fed's counterfeiting has created the biggest economic bubble in history. A severe economic crisis will be the inevitable result. Indications from Fed Chairman Powell are that more QE will be on the way. Can an increase in the disease succeed in being the cure?
Sen. Rand Paul joins today's Liberty Report with an exclusive report on recent Senate actions on War Powers and Iran. Plus - what's happening on the Hill after the explosive "Afghanistan Papers" revealed the 18 year lie. Bonus: Rand on Snowden. Don't miss this one!
President Trump's State Department has for the first time cancelled US funding for Palestinian security forces who cooperate with their Israeli counterparts to reduce violence in the West Bank. As Israel appears poised to annex the West Bank, is this a pre-text for that action? Is there a quid pro quo for Trump in suspending this aid that no one wants to talk about?
By Chris Rossini
Billionaires get a lot of press these days. They're the bad guys. There's only a handful of them, and they're such an easy target. So if you're a politician looking to 'get votes,' people with a lot of money can be painted as "greedy" and the votes will come pouring in.
It's very simplistic, but it works.
People are led to believe that we have non-greedy, pure as the driven snow "public servants" in Washington DC. They've followed their calling to "serve the people," and a bunch of billionaires show up with their bags of money and ruin everything.
Well, if lobbyists, corporate interests, and billionaires are showing up with bags of money, what on Earth could they be buying?
What is for sale in Washington D.C.?
Surely, when one reads the U.S. Constitution, nothing should ever be for sale. The Constitution was meant to "chain down" political power, as the Founders said. This was the 'land of the free,' and power was to be a non-issue.
"Checks and Balances" were meant to keep bureaucrats tied up and hindered, while Americans enjoyed their natural individual liberty.
Furthermore, every pure as the driven snow politician swears to obey the U.S. Constitution. It's the very first thing that they do before taking office. Family and friends gather around, there are Bibles, raised right hands, and photos.
If the non-greedy superhuman politicians keep their word, and honor their oath of office, what can possibly be for sale in Washington D.C.?
Well, it turned out that the oath of office ended up being the politician's very first "official" lie.
Today we find that American politicians don't follow the Constitution at all (or barely). Just about everything that is done by Washington is blatantly unconstitutional.
It didn't have to be this way, of course. The "public servants" could have taken their oath seriously. In fact, that's exactly what Ron Paul did as a Congressman. His votes were tied to the U.S. Constitution. If something was unconstitutional (i.e., just about everything) he voted "No."
Do you know how many "public servants" joined him in voting "No" to unconstitutional laws? Go look at the votes.
Dr. Paul even earned the noble moniker "Dr. No."
It's ironic because the nickname was meant to have a negative connotation to it. But Ron Paul was actually "Dr. Yes." He was voting "Yes" for the Constitution and "Yes" for individual liberty.
So we have identified the answer to our earlier question --- What is for sale in Washington D.C.?
The answer to that question is -- unconstitutional power.
Ron Paul never had an issue with corporate interests or "billionaires." Lobbyists of all stripes would walk right past his office door. They wouldn't even knock.
Why was that?
Because nothing was for sale. There was absolutely no unconstitutional power that anyone could horse-trade for. So no one bothered.
This leads us to the next question.
When something (anything) is for sale, who becomes the ultimate buyer? The highest bidder, of course.
If someone wants to buy your home, will you take the bid below your offer, at your offer, or above your offer? Your home will go to the highest bidder.
So if unconstitutional powers are for sale, who will those powers go to?
The average Joe? The poor? The vulnerable and weak?
Are they the highest bidders?
Of course not!
The unconstitutional powers will go to those with the most money, or perks, or whatever is involved in the horse-trade.
So the problem begins with the breaking of the oath of office. The problem does not begin with the lobbyists, and corporations, and billionaires. They capitalize on it for sure, but they are not the source.
Blaming corporations and billionaires solves absolutely nothing, even though it's a guaranteed vote getter.
You don't see politicians campaigning to follow the Constitution, right? There's no "movement" of those who promise to get to Washington to actually follow the law of the land. There may be 1 or 2 out of 500.
Instead, it's the exact opposite.
Politicians, every election season, dupe the rest of the American public. They "promise" the public that they too can get in on the unconstitutional game. They don't have to be billionaires. They can get unconstitutional stuff on the cheap!
"Just vote for me!"
Politicians promise lots of unconstitutional stuff .... FREE this ... FREE that ... FREE everything!
Everyone jumps in on the unconstitutional fire sale charade .... and nothing ever changes in Washington.
If you're going to have a country where the Constitution is completely ignored and unconstitutional power is up for grabs, the highest bidder will get the sale.
That's not what America was supposed to be.
Unconstitutional powers were not supposed to be available to anyone - rich or poor.
Americans were supposed to 'pursue their own individual happiness' and enjoy their freedom. Government was supposed to protect that freedom, not be the one who attempts to take it all away.
A big U-Turn is definitely in order.
There is a growing grassroots movement among conservatives across the United States to encourage US withdrawal from seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. State legislatures are getting in the game, passing legislation restricting state guard units from deploying overseas unless war has been declared by Congress. Idaho Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin has spearheaded efforts across the country to end endless wars.
By Ron Paul
This week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped. Just like “Russiagate” and the Mueller investigation, and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election.
We’ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office.
Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump? They can’t make a good case for abuse of power because they don’t really oppose Trump’s most egregious abuses of power. Congress, with a few exceptions, strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex.
In April, 2018, President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma. Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria, Trump didn’t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even an authorization for a missile strike. In fact, he didn’t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened! He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria.
We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “attack” was nothing but a false flag operation.
Is such unauthorized aggression against a country with which we are not at war not worth investigating as a potential “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
Last month, President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General, Qassim Soleimani, and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission. Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “imminent threat” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region.
We found out shortly afterward that they lied about the “imminent threat.” The assassination was not “urgent” – it was planned back in June. Trump then claimed it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated.
But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war. Is that not perhaps a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
We are finding out that, contrary to Trump claims, Soleimani was not even behind the December attack on US troops in Iraq. New evidence suggests it was actually an ISIS operation attempting to goad the US into moving against Iraq’s Shia militias.
Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office. Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “business as usual” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.
Democrats won’t move against Trump for what may be real “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” because they support his overseas aggression. They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger.
The annual charade of the Executive branch presenting a budget proposal for the next year began today. President Trump presented a massive $4.8 trillion budget proposal that gives the impression of slashing domestic spending while boosting spending on militarism. Do we really need what the Pentagon is buying? Do military spending increases really make us safer...or less safe?